Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Prison Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: The purpose of this debate is to raise in the House some of the wide concerns about the management of the Prison Service, especially those concerns highlighted in the reports of the chief inspector of prisons. I seek a response from the Government to those concerns and to some of the ideas that I will advance.
As of last Friday, the Prison Service held 64,238 prisoners in 127 directly managed establishments and in seven prisons run by private sector companies. I have chosen not to debate the issue of private prisons on this occasion, but we believe strongly, on principle, that the state should not deprive people of liberty and then hand the key to the private sector. However, that does not mean that private sector prisons cannot be managed well, and we can learn some lessons from them. I shall briefly explore that issue later.
The Prison Service employs about 40,000 staff in the prisons that it manages directly and the operating costs of the service total about £1.7 billion. A service of that size must be managed as effectively as possible and must achieve its stated purposes, giving value for money.
I do not believe that the Prison Service is in decline. It has made considerable achievements in recent years under particularly stressful conditions, most notably—although not exclusively—in prison security and in reducing the number of escapes. That is not surprising, as all efforts have been directed at those areas. The chief inspector pays a particularly warm tribute to the work of the former director, Richard Tilt, who was the first director appointed from within the Prison Service. He took control of the service in difficult circumstances when morale had been damaged dramatically and made significant improvements.
While criticising the management of the Prison Service, I acknowledge that friends and people whom I respect work at every level of the service, from prison officers to top management. I know the dedication and commitment that they demonstrate. However, the fact remains that there are significant problems and that something is seriously wrong with the management of the service.
Members of Parliament tend to know when something is wrong with organisations from the way in which individual cases are handled. I have had problems with the Prison Service over the years. While trying recently to secure the transfer of a prison officer from Scotland to

England, I discovered that the England and Wales Prison Service and the Scottish Prison Service have been in dispute over transfers since 1995, and that that dispute remains unresolved.
While pursuing another case involving a prison officer who I believe was wrongly dismissed and unjustly treated, I discovered that Prison Service headquarters had told a local authority inquiring about his reference that that man had never worked for the service. When such things happen, one begins to explore the situation more deeply. Those painful individual matters—the first has been resolved satisfactorily, but the second has not—cause concern, but I have many other reasons to be worried about the management of the Prison Service.
Many of my greatest and most obvious concerns date back to the closing years of the previous Government. The Prison Service will never forget the years when it was run "Howard's way". His was an era when the Home Secretary interfered in all aspects of the service, but was never prepared to take responsibility for it, especially if something went wrong—as it often did. The revelations of the then outgoing Minister of State, now the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), confirmed all our worst fears about the then Home Secretary's approach to the management of the service.
However, the problems had begun even before that. The Woodcock report on the Whitemoor escapes stated:
There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters and … Prison Governors. In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy, leading to confusion as to where responsibility lies.
The report made the further crushing observation:
Any organisation which boasts one Statement of Purpose, one Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight KPIs"—
key performance indicators—
without any clear correlation between them, is producing a recipe for total confusion and exasperation amongst those undertaking a most difficult and dangerous task on behalf of the general public.
The new Home Secretary has rightly changed the management style that he inherited from his predecessor. He has stated clearly that he takes responsibility for the service, but his style is not one of constant and detailed interference. That is very welcome. It would be easy to assume that all the deficiencies in Prison Service management have been remedied, but the chief inspector's annual report makes it clear that serious long-term problems remain.
A major theme of the report is the lack of consistency within the Prison Service. Service standards and conditions identified by the chief inspector vary greatly and include variations within the same category of prison establishment. With the exception of dispersal prisons, there appears to be considerable inconsistency of standards within each category of prison. Factors such as whether a prisoner's offending behaviour will be challenged through education, work or offending behaviour programmes, how much time prisoners spend locked in their cells and whether those cells are overcrowded depend upon which prison an offender is sent to.
Referring to young offender institutions, the chief inspector's report states:
We have continued to find some disgraceful examples of unacceptable treatment and conditions of children under the age of 18 and other young offenders, as well as some outstanding examples of good practice.
The reports on Feltham and Werrington understandably caused considerable alarm. The inspector also pointed out that Prison Service management is failing to identify the problems within prisons. He stated:
Time and time again, my Inspectorate and I find ourselves reporting on matters that I believe should have been resolved by line management as a matter of course.
He continues:
Unless senior management is ruthless in insisting on the maintenance of standards, never tolerating anything less than what is required, while recognising and enthusing over what is good, or better, no operational organisation can hope to succeed.
The chief inspector's conclusion is that the fundamental cause of those failures is that
this organisation is inefficient, because it appears to be more about the management of financial resources than the oversight of operational delivery".
There must be something wrong with the management of a national service in which such contrasting results are achieved and significant problems are not identified by line management. That would not be acceptable in any other national service, and it should not be accepted in the Prison Service. There are varying circumstances for each Prison Service establishment, but that does not justify the results, which seem to be due to a failure in the organisation of line management.
The chief inspector suggests that the problem might have originated from the abolition of the Prison Commission in 1962 and the consequent Whitehall takeover of the management of prisons. He believes that from that point, the ethos has been wrong. The emphasis has been on a service to Ministers, rather than the delivery of required operational outcomes. I have always suspected that the Home Office's tendency to second-guess Prison Service decisions, or the fear that it will do so, blurs management responsibility and weakens managers.
The chief inspector does not blame individual operational directors, area managers or governors, but argues that the organisational structure needs reform. He contrasts the experience of dispersal prisons with the rest of the prison service. Dispersal prisons are under a single director with financial authority, so there is much greater direction and consistency, which contrasts with the geographically organised management of the rest of the Prison Service. He concludes that there should be much greater functional management of the service.
Recent changes have addressed some of those issues, but I share the chief inspector's concern that those reforms may not have gone far enough, and some aspects of them may create new problems. A positive step is the creation of a new position of director of regimes, as well as assistant directors for adult training, women prisoners and young offenders. However, the concern remains that, because there is not direct authority over all aspects in each of those areas, the necessary improvements will not be made.
The failure within young offenders' institutions is an example. Despite the Home Secretary's statements on improving the juvenile secure estate, senior operational managers were found to be failing to achieve their targets. The chief inspector said that, at Werrington, operational managers were sanctioning extensive doubling up in single cells and young people were being required to share cells with strangers on their first night in prison. At Feltham, conditions were even worse than when he had inspected the establishment two years earlier. He said:
That senior line management in the Prison Service should even think that such conditions and treatment are appropriate, confirmed my fear that the Assistant Director of Regimes would be powerless to influence the day to day routines that are currently not her responsibility to fund, however much she might be able to design appropriate offending behaviour programmes.
The chief inspector gives the shocking example of HMP Brockhill, where, he says,
disgracefully, we found that 80 per cent. of the uniformed staff were male, over a year after it had been converted to a women's prison.
He says that Holloway remains virtually unmanageable.
The chief inspector has therefore repeated his call for greater direct functional management for aspects of the Prison Service, including making one person responsible for all aspects of individual functions, with the authority to allocate resources. The priority areas are women and young offenders, with one overall director needing to be responsible for all day-to-day activities in any prison in each of those categories. The Government have so far resisted that call, and I should like to know what their latest thinking is.
The chief inspector has also drawn attention to the fact that prison governors have extensive delegated powers over the budgets for their establishments, but also face a heavy bureaucratic load, which inhibits their ability to exercise leadership and remain in close contact with the prison. He says:
To bog governors down in bureaucratic detail shows a lack of awareness of the load on them, and the fact that it is inhibiting their ability to walk their prisons is bound to have an effect on the operational performance of staff, which in turn affects the delivery of the operational aim.
There have been other recent reforms of the management system. The quinquennial review of the Prison Service has confirmed its agency status, which we have supported, but there have been further changes. A new strategy board is to be chaired by a Home Office Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, with the director general as his deputy, but there is also a separate Prison Service management board, which is chaired by the director general. There is concern that this unusual system of two overlapping boards will again blur the lines of responsibility in the Prison Service between operational and policy matters. How will that system work?
Part of the answer to improving management may be the extension of service delivery agreements within the Prison Service. We welcome that approach, which makes clear what is expected and how it is to be achieved, and that oversight of outcomes is needed. This is not, as I have said, the occasion for a debate on the ethics of the private management of prisons, about which we have concerns, but it is relevant to note private prisons' clear advantage, which we can learn from, which is that they are told precisely what is expected of them.
The Prison Service has a key regulatory role for private prisons, which do not always achieve their targets, as the long list of reduced contract payments demonstrates, but there are lessons to be learned from private management and the system by which those prisons' requirements are set. In the public sector, there needs to be proper assessment of the needs of each individual prison. Funding should follow needs more effectively, and reform should be based on that concept.
The biggest problem that the Prison Service faces is overcrowding. Excessive numbers not only lead to unacceptable conditions but undermine the work of the service. The focus becomes containment and security—keeping prisoners inside—instead of the more positive work that can be done. Overcrowding drains resources, reduces morale and undermines the capacity to undertake constructive work with offenders. It is understandably difficult to manage a service in which demands constantly outweigh resources. Overcrowding is a theme to which the chief inspector returns every year.
Overcrowding jams up the prison system. In theory, prisoners should move through categories of prisons by completing the required parts of their sentence at each level. However, the chief inspector points out that
this sensible procedure has been severely disrupted by the effects of overcrowding, the Prison Service having to operate at over capacity the whole time to ensure that every available bed-space is occupied.
It is welcome that the recent rapid rise in the prison population has decreased in the past year, but at more than 64,000 prisoners, it is stabilising at an overcrowded level. That is like saying to the inhabitants of various midlands towns, "It is all right, the floods will stay at about their present level, and they won't go up much more." The prison population is at a level above the Home Office's projection for this period.
According to the chief inspector, in the past year, local prisons were, on average, holding 26 per cent. more prisoners than they are resourced to hold. That category of prison is the greatest cause for anxiety because they are centres of inactivity and idleness. They have by far the highest suicide rate. Suicide is a major problem in the service. The figures for the first quarter of this year suggest that record numbers last year may be matched this year.
This country has 122 prisoners for every 100,000 people, compared with 110 in Spain, 90 in France and Germany, 85 in Italy and Holland, 80 in Belgium, 65 in Denmark, 60 in Sweden, 55 in Norway and 50 in Greece. Our prison population is well over double those of Greece and Norway. In the whole of western Europe, only Portugal jails a higher proportion of its population. We are similar to ex-communist countries in our rate of imprisonment.
Liberal Democrats have continually challenged the false argument that excessive use of prison sentences makes communities safer; it has the opposite effect because it maximises reoffending and consumes huge resources that could be used more effectively to protect the public. There seems to be a belief in the Home Office that the new community sentences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the introduction of home detention curfews and some lessening of the "lock 'em up" rhetoric will reduce the prison population to a more reasonable level, but there is no guarantee of that. We have yet to see

the results for the prison population of the Government's adoption of the previous Government's policy of mandatory sentencing.
Mandatory sentencing will not only affect those convicted of offences with mandatory sentences, but will almost certainly ratchet up other sentences when comparisons begin to be made between someone who gets a defined, mandatory sentence and someone whose offence seems to the courts and the public to be worse and more violent and therefore to demand a sentence greater than that for an offence carrying a mandatory sentence.
Overcrowding and excessive demands on the Prison Service have probably been directly responsible for the provisional figures for the results achieved against the key performance indicators, which were published in a parliamentary answer to me this week. Those figures demonstrate that the service has failed on five of the 11 targets. The areas where the Prison Service failed to meet the set targets were assaults, time out of cells, purposeful activity, completion of the sex offender treatment programme and cost per prisoner. Those are key areas. If we want to cut reoffending, good work now—in the provision of effective treatment for sex offenders and of constructive activity, and in cutting violence and bullying in prisons—is essential to help to protect the public in future.
Time does not allow for a detailed analysis of key performance indicators, although the chief inspector demonstrates that many of them are either false or misleading. He suggests that they would be more meaningful if, for example, they measured such things as the number of prisoners who have learned to read by the time that they are released.
Following the comprehensive spending review, the Government have allocated more money to the Prison Service, which is undoubtedly needed to sustain present demand. The figures that the Government use perhaps exaggerate the amount of extra money that the service will receive in real terms. Although the Home Office report refers to £49 million extra this year, £55 million next year and £56 million the following year, in real-term 1997–98 prices, we are talking about £3 million, £8 million and £7 million extra respectively. Having said that, the money is welcome in the Prison Service, and I see indications already of where it has been committed to valuable improvements.
Overcrowding in recent years has led to significant cuts. The objectives of the Prison Service—rightly—are twofold: to protect the public by holding safely those whom the courts have committed, and to reduce crime by providing constructive regimes which promote law-abiding behaviour both in custody and on release.
The second objective has particularly suffered from overcrowding and tight resources. Between April 1995 and the end of this new Government's first year, there was a fall in the amount of education undertaken in 72 per cent. of prison establishments. In 63 per cent. of them, there was a decline in the amount of work undertaken, and in 49 per cent. a decrease in both education and work. That trend is in exactly the wrong direction.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem not only with


overstretch but because the Prison Officers Association is not allowed to operate in private prisons? Different rules and standards of employment are leading to difficulties. I do not know whether he is aware that people in charge of escorts do not recognise the POA. Market testing of training is another problem. I have two prisons in my constituency, and those are the issues that are raised with me. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman hears the same problems. The staff are of a good calibre, but morale needs to be lifted. The only way to do that is to stop overstretch and more prisoners entering prisons.

Mr. Beith: As I have two prisons in my constituency and a responsibility in the House that leads me to visit many others, I echo the fact that there are just such problems. I have a great deal of sympathy for prison officers, who are at the sharp end of all the problems and must deal with cuts. Such officers are very often not available in sufficient numbers to enable the provision of education. Why are evening educational activities frequently cancelled? It is not because there is no education officer; it is because there are no prison officers to accompany prisoners on such activity.
The chief inspector has expressed quite strongly the need for a change in the culture of the Prison Service, involving both management and the Prison Officers Association. Such a change, away from the confrontation of the past toward a much more co-operative approach, began some time ago. Because private prisons began operation without some of that history, they have enjoyed some advantages. However, the POA would quickly point out that such staff are at some disadvantage in that they lack the association's strong support in some of the difficulties in which they may find themselves. We are in an era of significant change in how people who work in prisons work together with a common purpose.
When 53 per cent. of released offenders, including 75 per cent. of young offenders and 89 per cent. of juveniles, reoffend within two years of release, it is disastrous that we should be losing work and educational activities. There is a real chance that the Government's new money will simply plug the gaps that have grown over the past four years rather than achieve a net improvement. The key performance indicators that were published this week show that the level of purposeful activity has fallen for four years in a row. The Minister should be embarrassed that the figures are as bad as that, and should recognise the need for some urgent action.
The chief inspector points out that work and education are seen as the soft target for cuts. Without guidance to the contrary, one can understand why governors make such decisions; there is very little else that they can cut in the short term. That approach must be reformed. In the section on training prisons, the chief inspector makes a significant remark:
When Governors suggest to me that their prison is the cheapest in the system, I ask them what they are not doing in order to achieve that 'distinction'. Invariably the answer is in regime activities, which means that they have idle and unemployed prisoners, the antithesis of a training prison.
We must end the absurdity under which cuts in the very programmes that have been shown to help to reduce reoffending are regarded as efficiency gains. It is

nonsense to regard taking out the very thing that can make prison do its jobs properly as an improvement in efficiency.
Prisons are there to protect the public by safeguarding those whom the courts have committed, and by ensuring that, when such people return to society, they are less likely to commit further crimes. To achieve that, the Prison Service must be resourced to meet the demands that are placed on it. However, it must also be managed in a way that delivers outcomes as effectively as possible. I do not think that there could have been more compelling testimony that that is not so than that provided by the chief inspector. I hope that the Government are taking it very seriously indeed.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been able to secure this debate. I shall raise three issues: the self-harm of prisoners, work and active prison regimes and the relationship between prisons and the probation service.
The incidence of self-harm in prison is worrying. We know that suicide in prisons is a major problem. Between 1990 and March 1997, 516 people took their lives in British prisons, which must be a major cause of concern. In addition to those who go so far as to take their own lives, a significant number carry out other acts of self-harm. In a written answer that I received yesterday, I was given some disturbing figures. Between September 1997 and October 1998—the last 12-month period for which complete statistics are available—the number of reported incidents of self-harm among male prisoners was 5,963, and among female prisoners, 1,052.
The figure for female prisoners is particularly worrying. For men, the 6,000-odd incidents can be set against 60,000 prisoners, giving a ratio of approximately one incident per 10 prisoners a year. But for the 3,000 women prisoners, there is approximately one incident per three prisoners a year. That must be a major source of concern in the management of care of female prisoners.
Although self-harm, by definition, is not wholly under the control of prison management, the regime must be a material factor in deciding self-harm rates. We believe that overcrowding, in particular, causes problems because it increases tension in prisons and reduces opportunities for supervision, especially of those who are vulnerable and liable to self-harm.
In that respect, the dramatic increase in the number of women prisoners who harm themselves must be noted: from 1,353 at the end of 1992 to 3,189 by the end of July 1998. That is a 136 per cent. increase, compared with a 64 per cent. increase over the same period for male prisoners. Concern about that is reflected in the chief inspector's description of the situation in Holloway as "appalling". Although women prisoners who harm themselves are of particular concern, the problem extends to prisoners in general.
On issues of work and active regimes, on which my right hon. Friend touched, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that prison works best when prisoners work. The figures for weekly hours spent on purposeful activity are deeply worrying. As my right hon. Friend said, there has been a reduction in hours of purposeful activity in most prisons. The figures seem to show a trend of hours falling year on year.
In the year 1994–95. the average number of hours spent weekly on purposeful activities was 26.2; in 1995–96, it was 25.2; in 1996–97, it was 23.8; in 1997–98, it was 23.2; and in 1998–99, it was 22.8. That last figure was set against a declared target of 24 hours. There is an incontrovertible trend in the wrong direction, which we would wish to be dramatically reversed as a key way of reducing reoffending, which must be one of the primary goals of the Prison Service.
Prisoners need a purposeful regime if they are to be prepared for release. That must be a particular concern in respect of young offenders, who we hope have a useful future before them and will not return to the prison system or the criminal justice system.
The chief inspector's report on the young offenders institution and remand centre at Feltham causes particular concern in this respect. After visiting Feltham on an unannounced inspection, the chief inspector said that he had to disclose to the public not only that the conditions and treatment of the 922 children and young prisoners confined in HMYOI and RC Feltham were
in many instances, totally unacceptable",
but that they were some of the worst things that he had seen in the prison regime and in many ways worse than when he reported on them two years previously.
There was particular cause for concern in the figures that he reported on opportunities for employment at Feltham. When the children and young offenders who were held there were asked whether they had done any work that would help them to get a job on release, only 8 per cent. thought that it would help them. Twenty-five per cent. were uncertain. Six per cent. thought that it was too far in the future to say. Nine per cent. did not comment. Very worryingly, 52 per cent. thought that the work
would not be helpful to them on release".
That is set against the background of the chief inspector's deep concern about Feltham in general. Those youngsters have their whole life ahead of them, and we must hope that they will find their way into purposeful employment as a major way of preventing them from having any further contact with the criminal justice system.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: There are in my constituency a remand prison and a senior prison—Strangeways and Hindley. I remember discussing with a prison governor, who ultimately moved very high in the prison ranks, the question of what we considered to be purposeful training in the true sense. I am glad to say that half the young remand prisoners were doing purposeful training on such things as brick making, concrete work and car maintenance. They were a bit reluctant about car maintenance. There was always a problem attached—there was some temptation there.
The first thing that the governor said to me was, "If I could, I would ensure that all my prison staff got involved in this type of thing, but I have to make cuts according to the scale of tenders that are coming in for particular jobs." To cut a long story short, I believe that work is the answer to 80 per cent. of our crime problems. No one commits a crime believing that they will be caught. Fully employing people in useful occupations is the best form of therapy that one can give prison detainees.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman makes a significant and important point. It is useful to hear that those running

another institution feel that the cuts that they have been expected to make are causing problems. Liberal Democrats believe that investment in confronting offending behaviour and dealing with some of the social and educational issues that have led people into crime is a very good investment for the taxpayer, and produces a far better return than making a short-term cut in an annual prison budget. If the money is used in the former way, we shall save significantly in the long term because people will not re-enter the criminal justice system.
The other side of the work coin must be education. It is well acknowledged that many of those who end up in the prison system have had bad educational experiences. Frequently, they are people who find work very difficult because they have not reached the first rung of the ladder—people with literacy problems, for example.
Seventy-one per cent. of the people who arrived at Feltham had been assessed for their educational needs, but, when asked about opportunities for education in the prison, a majority of them said that they were not good. Only a small number felt that the opportunities that they had had were sufficient for their needs, and 81 per cent. of those who responded said that they would like there to be far more educational classes.
There we have a group of youngsters who probably have deficient educational experiences, who have committed offences for which they are rightly being punished, but 81 per cent. of whom wish to enter some form of education and obviously desire to move forward. They wanted things such as NVQs in mechanics, engineering, catering and food hygiene, which would help them to find employment on leaving the institution. The desire is there, but there must be major concerns about whether those courses are being delivered in sufficient numbers.
I hope that the Minister will talk about the relationship between prisons and probation services. I know that that is a key policy area for the Government. In his 1996–97 report, the chief inspector of prisons reported on the probation services in worrying terms:
Probation services have been cut. both in the number of seconded staff working in prisons, and staff to supervise prisoners on release.
I trust that the Minister will say whether she believes that the cuts in probation staff who are seconded to prisons and those working at the area of release are being reversed.
The cuts have been especially difficult for probation services at a time when many of them are reporting that they are fully stretched in trying to implement national standards. They are doing their best to meet national standards, but some of the other work in relation to their own targets sometimes falls off the priority list. Some of that interface between the Prison Service and the probation service, where the Prison Service has one set of targets and the probation service has another, can suffer as a result. I hope that the Government will consider that.
Local probation services have reported to me that they naturally find it very difficult to work with local offenders, who will be coming home, and who are held in distant prisons. They simply do not have the resources to send probation officers to the other end of the country to work with the prisoner before release, and they often fail to do so simply on resource grounds. I wonder whether more could be done within the management of the Prison Service to ensure that prisoners have more


contact with their home probation service before they are released, so that when they are released there is already a firm foundation for the probation work that will follow.
Finally, there has been a small reduction in the number of people held in prison as a result of the home detention curfew scheme. Will the Minister say something on how well she considers the Prison Service to be managing the release of people into home detention curfew? How will the scheme be assessed and reported on? It is a novel scheme and it would be useful to see how it has panned out, especially in respect of the crucial interface between Prison Service and probation service, where we are effectively transferring a responsibility; the probation services are obliged to pick up new responsibilities and set up new systems for managing the tagging schemes.
I hope that the Minister can use her response to say that the Government share many of my concerns and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that she can give us some prospect of a reversal in the worrying trends of reduction in purposeful activity and of failure to deliver the types of education, confronting offending schemes and work experience that we believe would make prison as effective as it could possibly be in reducing reoffending.

Mr. James Clappison: This has been a useful debate on an important subject. I sometimes think that we do not debate prisons sufficiently in the House, and I welcome any opportunity to debate prisons and prison management.
I listened with great interest to the detailed speech by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who made some important points. At the outset, he said that his party had a principled objection to privatised prisons. That is fair enough. However, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede that many advances have been made in the Prison Service through the introduction of private prisons, and that many lessons can be learned from the way in which they have been managed.
When privatised prisons were introduced under the previous Government, we heard similar objections of principle from the then Opposition. There was a long campaign of attacks on private prisons and privately managed custody services. There was a time when every escape from privatised custody services and court transfers was reported with great glee from the then Opposition Benches, but we do not hear so much about that now. There seems to have been a conversion, which we welcome.
There are ever increasing examples of the extension of private management. In another part of the House we are debating a Bill that applies privatisation to immigration detention centres. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised important issues of detail, which must be answered.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who rightly mentioned the case of Feltham. I visited Feltham fairly recently. The institution has a long and difficult history. We need to pay attention to the views of the chief inspector of prisons on Feltham and the rate of progress, or lack of progress, there.
One of the problems is the physical structure of Feltham and the way in which the units are divided up. Another problem is the mixing of prisoners across age groups and categories–15 and 16-year-olds sometimes mix with older youths, 17 and 18-year-olds, and remanded prisoners mix with sentenced prisoners. It is better to keep the categories separate and Feltham does try to do that, but when I visited the prison it was apparent that that was not always being achieved, because of the pressures under which the system operated. I make no criticism of the prison staff, as I know that there are many caring prison staff at Feltham and at other prisons.
The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about education and training opportunities for young people in prison. That is an important subject. The best management of education and training for young people that I have seen in my visits to prisons was at an institution that has, sadly, been closed by the Government. That was the military correctional facility at Colchester—the so-called boot camp.
The term "boot camp" may have put an unfortunate complexion on that institution. In my experience, it had the most caring staff of all and more was being achieved with the young people at that institution, which was set up by the previous Government, than at any other institution that I have seen. Its training produced extremely good results, measured by certificates and recognition of achievement, in fields such as those mentioned during the debate—motor mechanics, brick laying and painting. The young people who went there received good instruction from trained instructors, under the watchful eye of the non-commissioned officers of the military correctional facility.
There was a good record of achievement. We look forward to the results of the independent research that has been carried out by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology into the performance of the military correctional facility, particularly its record of reconvictions. If young people who have been in trouble and spent time in custody receive good training and education and later have a lower rate of reconviction, we will study the results from the military correctional facility with great interest. It is a shame that when those results become available and the good practice there comes to light, the facility will no longer be open. Its premature closure is a matter of regret to us.
Prison management is a large subject. The aspect that I shall briefly explore is the management of prisons so as to ensure that the prisoners who present the greatest security risks are held in the most secure conditions and the public are given the greatest possible protection from them, and that other prisoners who do not present such a great risk to the public are not wrongly held in secure conditions.
With regard to the most serious offenders—those who are serving life sentences for the gravest offences—I am worried by a written answer received yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about a case in his constituency, which throws light on the management of prisons, particularly the temporary release of life-sentenced prisoners. I understand from the written answer that there has been a recent history of life-sentenced prisoners absconding from Sudbury prison in my hon. Friend's constituency, and that in the past two months two life-sentenced prisoners failed


to return to Sudbury from temporary release. One is still unlawfully at large. The other surrendered to the police in north Wales and has been charged with murder.
It may be difficult for the Minister to respond on individual cases, but I look to her for some reassurance about the policy of holding life-sentenced prisoners in relaxed conditions, and particularly temporary release for such prisoners. In the light of the information concerning Sudbury prison, and of the understandable concern of my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire, we are owed an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Beith: I agree that the cases quoted by the hon. Gentleman give rise to questions about why particular prisoners are allocated to particular prisons, especially when one hears the police say that someone who is dangerous and whom the public should not approach has absconded from an open prison. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that to refer to life sentences in general implies that all life-sentenced prisoners need to held securely. That is manifestly not the case, as a life sentence is often a mandatory sentence and is sometimes applied to people with a very low likelihood of absconding or reoffending.

Mr. Clappison: That is right, but we must recognise that life-sentenced prisoners will include those who are the most dangerous to the public and who must be managed with the greatest care. That is the point on which I am pressing the Minister.
Moving down a notch on the scale of seriousness, the issue of prisoners released on home detention curfew was touched on by the hon. Member for Hallam. The Minister knows our view on the use of tagging—home detention curfew—for the early release of prisoners. We have no problem with the use of home detention curfew as such or as a sentence in its own right. It was pioneered by the previous Government, again in the face of opposition from the present Government. Every technical problem was highlighted, and at one time as a point of principle the then Opposition disagreed with the use of tagging in any circumstances—but I shall draw a veil over that.
The Minister knows our principles with regard to honesty in sentencing. The early release of these prisoners makes a mockery of the sentences handed down by the courts, at least as far as public and victims are concerned. A sentence of six months' imprisonment may mean only six weeks spent in custody.
On the management of prisoners who are to be released subject to home detention curfew, I was concerned by written answers that I recently received from the Department showing the extent to which prisoners with convictions for violence have been released on home detention curfew since the new system began on 28 January. Between that date and 19 April, 617 offenders who were serving sentences for offences of violence were released on home detention curfew.
Many members of the public would find that a striking figure. They and the courts have long recognised that violent offenders present the greatest danger to the public. Statutes going back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 have recognised the need for violent offenders to receive longer sentences of imprisonment. It is thus surprising that so many of them are being released on home detention curfew.
When home detention curfew was introduced, we were assured that it would be managed in such a way that there would not be quota for such prisoner releases. I do not know how that is working out in practice, but we question whether it is right that so many prisoners with convictions for violence should be released.
If the Government have taken such a course in respect of early release through home detention curfew—we have made our views known on that—and instead of releasing so many violent offenders, can the system be managed in such a way that non-violent prisoners, who pose less threat to the public, are released? Many members of the public—not to mention victims who are concerned about early releases—will find it striking that violent offenders should be released in this way.
I turn from those who require secure conditions and who should serve out their sentences in prison to those who may not necessarily need to be in prison at all. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Hallam said about women prisoners. He is right that there has been a noticeable increase in their numbers in recent times; indeed, there has been a 20 per cent. increase since the Government came to office.
Sad to say, women sometimes need to go to prison—they commit serious offences, alongside men—but we wonder what lies behind such a disproportionate growth in the women's prison population, which is growing faster than the men's. We will be holding more and more women in prison, which I do not find a particularly inspiring prospect, and if there is a way of avoiding that I should like to explore it.
Members of the public will recently have seen the interesting television series featuring life inside New Hall prison. People would be concerned if we had to have more and more institutions such as New Hall to hold women prisoners, so I wonder whether imprisoning more women is justified.

Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one area that we need to explore is better community sentences for women offenders so that we have non-custodial alternatives? Some probation services have reported that community sentences, and community service in particular, are often designed for men; it is a hard-labour situation. A lot of advances could be made so that courts have a genuine alternative to custody.

Mr. Clappison: It would be a shame if a court imposed a custodial sentence on a woman convicted of a serious offence because there was no appropriate non-custodial sentence, even though she was a borderline case. Many members of the public would rather she received a non-custodial sentence, especially if she had a family—she would be able to keep in contact with them.
I listened to the comments on Holloway made by the hon. Member for Hallam. I had not visited that prison until fairly recently, and one of the most striking experiences of an interesting visit was meeting a 16-year-old girl who was there. I asked to see the youngest prisoner, but I never expected to meet a 16-year-old girl. That meeting made me think about the public policy involved in a fresh-faced 16-year-old girl ending up in Holloway to serve a short sentence.
It is sometimes said that holding younger people in local adult prisons is justified because that enables them to be nearer their families—there are more prisons than


specialised institutions—but I have to report that the girl in question came from Southampton and the distance between Southampton and Holloway made it difficult for her family to visit. She told me that the thing that she looked forward to most in life was visits from her mum, and she had not been having enough of them. I could not think of any adequate justification for that and I wonder whether there might be a better alternative.
The Government have recently made announcements on young people in prison; I am prepared to give them credit for that, but I have some more critical comments to make on the question of boys in men's prisons. On the management of prisons holding girls, the Government have announced in a written answer that they intend to make use of the detention and training order
by placing sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls in available non-Prison Service accommodation, when the detention and training order is in force. The first priority will be to place the youngest and most vulnerable young women outside the Prison Service. In the short term, arrangements within the Prison Service for holding 17-year-old women, and other young women for whom other accommodation is not available, will be improved by establishing discrete units for young women under the age of 21, with enhanced regimes within these.
That is one of those written answers that needs reading carefully, so I read it carefully to see whether there is what we might term a seamless safety net to prevent young girls from ending up in women's prisons. The more I read the answer, the more I was worried by some of the terminology, particularly the words
other young women for whom other accommodation is not available".—[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 29.]
Does that mean that young girls will still be held in prison accommodation when other accommodation is not available?
Would not it be better if we simply stopped holding 15 and 16-year-old girls in women's prisons in such circumstances? I would be prepared to give the Government a plaudit if they made such an announcement, but I would be cautious about a policy that appeared to be moving towards ending the holding of sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls in women's prisons, but did not achieve that. We have had experience of that nature with the Government's proposals for the remand of 15 and 16-year-old boys, and I now move on to that unhappy subject.
As the Minister will know, Labour Members made a great song and dance in opposition about the holding of 15 and 16-year-old boys in adult prisons. It is surprising that such boys are held in adult prisons up and down the country, sometimes in the oldest prisons. They are often held in the oldest parts of those prisons and, although they are separated from the older offenders, the context and setting are very much those of an adult prison.
The previous Government set an objective of ending altogether the remanding of 15 and 16-year-old boys to adult prisons. I should make it clear that such boys have been charged with an offence, but not convicted, although it is the view of a magistrates court that they need to be held in secure conditions. I am not disputing that they may need to be held securely, but the question is which secure conditions they should be held in.
The previous Government set in place a plan for providing local authority secure accommodation as an alternative to holding 15 and 16-year-old boys in adult

prisons. Many people agreed that local authority secure accommodation would be a much better way of holding such boys than putting them in adult prisons, and they could certainly be given much more appropriate care and education. The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about the difficulty of providing education for young people in custody, and that is all the more difficult when they are being held in adult prisons.
Small numbers of such boys—one 15-year-old and a handful of 16-year-olds, for example—may be held in adult prisons scattered across the country. It is the responsibility of the prison authorities to deliver the national curriculum to under-16s, which would be difficult if there was only one person in that category in an adult prison. It would be much easier if that person was held in local authority secure accommodation with other young people. That is one reason, and there are many others, why local authority secure accommodation is so much more appropriate for such young people—certainly more appropriate than adult prisons and, I would venture, than young offender or remand institutions.
Local authority secure accommodation is the best option for those young people. The previous Government set in place a programme for creating 170 places in such accommodation, to remove the need for these boys to be held in adult prisons. The last time I asked the Government about this problem, I was told that they had provided six places in local authority secure accommodation. I should be interested to know from the Minister whether there has been any advance on six since then. How many places have been created in local authority secure accommodation since 1 May 1997?
This subject is of interest to me, and it was of great interest to the Labour party before the last general election. It campaigned strongly on this issue, as did the then shadow Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1994. He highlighted the problem on the Floor of the House, and said that more local authority secure accommodation should be provided without delay. He said that 170 places were not enough, and that places were not being provided quickly enough. We should like to know how many places the Government have provided.
Given that commitment by the then shadow Home Secretary to create more local authority secure accommodation, and to put into it the 15 and 16-year-olds who are being held on remand in adult prisons, I am concerned about the announcement on the direction of Government policy in this regard. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 allowed for the continued remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons subject to a screening for vulnerability. We were told on 8 March 1999:
The Prison Service is finalising its plans for a distinct estate within its accommodation for 15 to 17-year-old boys remanded or sentenced to custody, with improved levels of care and regimes delivered within it."—[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 29.]
Are we to take it from that that the Government's policy is to hold those 15 and 16-year-old boys in other parts of the prison estate? Is the intention to move them from adult prisons into other young offender institutions or parts of the prison estate as opposed to local authority secure accommodation?
If that is now the direction of Government policy, they are short-changing us on the commitments that were given by the former shadow Home Secretary, now the


Prime Minister. The Government are short-changing us on their commitment to put 15 and 16-year-old boys remanded in custody into local authority secure accommodation. We are concerned about the management of the Prison Service in this respect. I look to the Minister for an answer on that issue.
Young people in trouble and in custody are of great concern to us. We should take care to ensure that the Prison Service is managed so as to provide appropriate alternatives to custody whenever possible, including local authority secure accommodation. If young people have been sentenced to custody and are held in young offender institutions or in detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, they should receive appropriate training and care.
We should devote our attention to the care of young people in those circumstances. This debate on the management of the Prison Service has afforded us an opportunity to discuss some of its aspects, and it is a subject in which we shall continue to have a strong interest. We expect the commitments that have been given to be fully honoured, and we do not want to be short-changed in the way I have described.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for securing this debate on the management of the Prison Service in England and Wales. I am pleased that even though there were only a few contributions, they showed that hon. Members take a close interest in this issue. It must be reassuring for people in prison to know that what is happening to them is discussed in Parliament.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that there is scope to improve our prisons and their management. I shall try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible. The 1997-98 annual report of the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, has been used as a reference point. It is an important and extremely useful report. As the Home Secretary said in his speech to the Prison Reform Trust last year, which is quoted in the introduction to the report:
The inspection of prisons should continue to be both independent and rigorous".
It is important that we consider carefully what the chief inspector has said. In an Adjournment debate, the more negative aspects tend to be highlighted, although the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made some positive points. In the report, the chief inspector says that when he took up the job he was advised that progress would be made only following disasters, and he quoted the various reports that had led to changes being made. What he goes on to say is interesting, however:
That may or may not be so, but my optimism, and gut feeling that the Prison Service has been presented with another window of opportunity, is, this time, not based on a particular disaster, but on a situation that has been created by the very deliberate programme embarked upon by the Government in general and the Home Secretary in particular, which I hope that I have interpreted correctly.
I am pleased that the chief inspector recognises that the Government are trying to approach the management of prisons in a different way.
The two key themes of the report are that our prison system needs improved direction, leadership and management; and that standards set should be met better

and more consistently—that word comes through in everything that has been said this morning—across the system. I should like to address those issues before I deal with particular points.
The Government are committed to ensuring proper ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service. That was an important element of the recent quinquennial review of the Prison Service and its status as an agency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 1 February his conclusion that the Prison Service should remain an agency of the Home Office. That followed two reports which, together with the writing of a new framework document, comprised the quinquennial review of the agency.
A report on evaluation of performance had concluded that the Prison Service, in the context of a rising prison population, had achieved a remarkable turnaround in performance over the first five years of agency status. That was partly because of a clear focus on outputs and service delivery as measured in key performance indicators. A prior options report studied the organisational options for the Prison Service and concluded that agency status should be reaffirmed. It is interesting that that was virtually the unanimous view of a wide range of internal and external prison interests.
The Prison Service can, in some respects, be regarded as under new management. It now has a new director general, Martin Narey, a new deputy director general, Phil Wheatley, several new directors, a new board structure with my noble Friend Lord Williams at its apex, and a more streamlined approach with a clearer focus on performance management. Much of that is tied together by a new framework document, announced by the Home Secretary and issued at the end of March, which sets out the up-to-date relationship between the Prison Service, Ministers and the core Home Office.
The new framework document proposes significant changes to meet the Government's commitment to ministerial control. It integrates the aims of the Prison Service within new planning arrangements for the wider criminal justice system. That is important, because for too long the prisons have been separate and isolated. We intend to ensure that everything that goes on in prisons is directly related to what is going on in the rest of the criminal justice system. The document focuses on management, responsibility and accountability issues with greater clarity for the roles of principal players, and in particular it provides for a new Prison Service strategy board and a Prison Service management board.
The Prison Service is also streamlining its structure and its approach to managing the service's performance. The 12 area managers are now managed directly by a new full-time deputy director general. There is a strong focus on performance management with 15 service delivery agreements between headquarters and establishments in place or planned from April 2000. Three-year improvement plans for particular establishments where appropriate will be rigorously managed. These arrangements build on a strong internal auditing structure through the standards audit unit, whereby operating and security standards are audited in every establishment at least once every two years.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Prison Service management board and the Prison Service strategy board. He felt that there might be some confusion


about what each would do, and asked for clarification. I assure him that this has been carefully thought out. The newly formed management board deals with immediate issues and meets regularly, addressing a wide range of day-to-day matters such as monitoring plans, deciding on priorities and expenditure, authorising projects and initiatives, approving internal communications—that is very important—and deciding what the strategy board should discuss.
The membership of the management board has been broadened to reflect our wish for a more outward-looking Prison Service. It includes a new director for corporate affairs, who will be a focal point for the service's modernisation programme. Those attending the board will include a racial equality adviser, who is yet to be appointed.
The Prison Service strategy board provides a forum for discussion of the strategic direction of the service. The board, chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams, the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, will concentrate on long-term strategy and high-level monitoring of the service's performance. Generally, the board will discuss major strategic policy matters such as personnel and industrial relations, and the extent to which the service is looking outwards and contributing to the more co-ordinated criminal justice system that the Government are trying to facilitate. The board's membership includes a Home Office director responsible for sentencing and correctional policy, and, among its non-executive directors, a current chief constable. The director general will still have delegated authority over day-to-day management of the service, and will be directly accountable to the Home Secretary for its performance. He is the Home Secretary's principal adviser on matters relating to its activity.
It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reminding us of what we did or did not say when we were in opposition. I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman of plenty of things that the Conservatives said when they were in government—things that they said they would do, and then did not do—but I feel that, when we are debating prisons, we should be looking forward and asking how we can improve things generally. [Interruption.] That means that I am not prepared to engage in a debate about what was and was not said, even by former shadow Home Secretaries.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked why governors were allowed to cut regimes, thus making it less likely that we would cut reoffending. We are shifting the focus on to what works, and trying to develop measures of effectiveness rather than concentrating on the amount of time that is spent outside the cell. What happens when prisoners are out of their cells is extremely important, and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out, it is essential for the Prison Service to work closely with the probation service in that context.
We are appointing a joint independent panel of experts to accredit prisons' probation programmes, developing a joint assessment tool and improving joint planning and training. As the hon. Gentleman said, a close working relationship between the Prison Service and the probation service is vital to the securing of a regime that will help to prevent prisoners from reoffending.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the cuts in probation services would be reversed. It is true that in some prisons probation involvement has declined in recent years; we are committed to reversing that by refocusing on constructive regimes to reduce the amount of reoffending. The ambitious programme of joint work by the Prison Service and the probation service is set out in the Government's 1998 consultation paper on the future management of probation. All the Prison Service's work on resettlement and reducing reoffending must be linked with the work of the statutory and voluntary agencies. We know that improvements can be made, and we are committed to making them.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked whether we were focusing adequately on the need to reduce reoffending, given that we had failed to meet the year's key performance indicator for the treatment of sex offenders. The extra money from the comprehensive spending review is being carefully targeted to reduce reoffending. Over three years, it will allow us to double the number of offending behaviour programmes. It will help us to improve prisoners' basic skills: we have set a target of 15 per cent., exactly the target set by the chief inspector. It will also allow us to implement a comprehensive drugs strategy, and to transform the care of juveniles to meet the expectations of the new youth justice board.
The hon. Member for Hallam spoke of the importance of work. People coming out of prison need to be prepared to get work, which will require the basic qualifications that many currently do not possess. We are working hard to improve that.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked whether we were considering functional management for women and juveniles. That important matter is currently being discussed. The new director general is—I think the word is "actively"—considering whether it would be right to move to functional management for women and those under 18. Obviously, any decision will have to be made after careful consultation both inside and outside the service, and I am sure that the director general will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said today; but significant improvements are already being made as new investment comes on stream.
The hon. Member for Hallam asked whether we were committed to reversing the decline in the number of hours spent on purposeful activity. That decline is not acceptable, and we are committed to reversing it, but, as I have said, we are also determined that time should be used more effectively. That is not straightforward: not everything works, which is why we must focus on basic skills, employment and accommodation needs, the problem of drug misuse and running offending behaviour programmes that work. The money for the new regime, and the new director of regimes, will enable us to make progress.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that there was not as much new money, in real terms, as had been suggested. The additional £226 million over three years is a real increase in terms of 1998–99 prices. The programme for access to drugs testing and treatment is to receive £76 million; £79 million is being provided for additional regimes for engagement in constructive activity; and £51 million is being provided for the juvenile estate and regimes. All those amounts are tied to specific


improvement targets: the new money will be specifically geared to the raising of standards and the reduction of reoffending.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what we meant by efficiency. Of course, no sensible person would define efficiency as the meeting of targets through the reducing of regimes. The service has been set challenging targets: as the right hon. Gentleman said, it aims to save £18 million, then £36 million and then £55 million over the next three years. We have a programme that we believe can deliver those savings through, for instance, energy efficiency, new procurement procedures and contract escorts. There will be no impact on regimes.
We all know from our visits to prisons that improvements could be made. Prison officers and governors need to develop methods of management that do not affect services that are vital to prisoners. On overcrowding, clearly, prisons must take all the prisoners that are sent to them by the courts. Average capacity will be increased by 2,400 places between this year and 2001. As hon. Members will know, four new prisons are to open. Overcrowding is not expected to rise over that period. We will introduce a new KPI for this year to measure doubling, so that it will not exceed 18 per cent. The figure for 1998–99 was 18.4 per cent., a slight reduction. Nevertheless, we aim to improve on it.
Self-harm is a serious question for every institution. It is dealt with by the suicide awareness team. It is often inflicted by prisoners with psychiatric illness. Often, it is evidence of frustration and replicates behaviour before the person went into prison. It is especially worrying among women. We are aware of the problem.
A priority for the Prison Service is to reduce self-harm by better diagnosis and identification of risk, focusing attention on counselling, treatment and advice. It needs to be constantly monitored. There has to be a balance between allowing reasonable freedom and access to things that can cause self-harm—materials, pens, cutlery and clothing—and preserving decency and dignity. That is the sort of difficult day-to-day decision that has to be taken by those working in our prisons. As hon. Members have said, we know the difficult job that prison officers have.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere was worried about lifers in open prisons and those who might be being allowed out under home detention curfews. Management of lifers is undertaken with great care. The overwhelming majority of lifers will be released in due course. Releasing them safely requires us to test them out in lower-security conditions. Once lifers have shown they can be trusted, temporary release may be appropriate for some.
Of course, where there is a failure, it is a matter of great concern, but the chief inspector himself acknowledged that the service's record on the safe release of lifers is very impressive.
There were a number of questions on home detention curfews. It is still early days, but, as of 28 April, 2,035 offenders were subject to the HDC scheme. Since the beginning of the scheme, 4,274 offenders have been placed on HDC and only 184— 1 per cent.—have had their licences revoked. The number placed so far in curfew demonstrates that the scheme has been handled sensitively and cautiously—the approach adopted by the governors, which we have encouraged.
Clearly, disparity of sentencing throughout the country is something about which we are all concerned. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will know that

the sentencing advisory board has been set up, which will look at why sentences are different in different parts of the country, and how we can ensure that we get a sensible balance and that the public feel that people are being sentenced appropriately. We will keep a careful watch on that. There will be regular reports on the numbers involved. What we do not want is sentencing becoming an issue only when something goes wrong. It is important that we regularly look at what is happening.
Several hon. Members mentioned Feltham, about which I feel strongly myself. We accept that there are fundamental problems at Feltham. I found the report that was published on 26 March pretty horrifying. It is particularly horrifying that so many things seem not to have happened following the previous recommendations after the full inspection in 1996. Clearly, that is not acceptable, but there are some good things happening at Feltham.
The Prison Service obviously shares many of the chief inspector's concerns about Feltham. Again, the opportunity exists to tackle some of the underlying problems there so that managers and staff can work together to create a prison of which they and the service can be proud. A task force has been set up to remedy the shortcomings; it is led by a senior governor. It has chartered a plan for improvement, which will be implemented over the next six months. There are serious issues to be tackled—some 39 issues for immediate action. The remainder are being taken forward by headquarters.
In addition, 10 new officers started training in April. The problems have been due mainly to population pressures. We are aware of the problem. I would hate the hon. Member for Hallam to come back in a year's time with conditions still the same at Feltham. That would be a real indictment of our attempt to change what is happening there.
I am aware that I have perhaps not raised a number of other points. Hon. Members will be written to if anything has not been raised.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said earlier. On the question that I raised about Sudbury, will she write to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about that matter, saying as much as possible, because I know that my hon. Friend is worried about what has taken place there?

Kate Hoey: Of course we will. We will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a full report of what is happening.
We have spent a useful hour and a half this morning during which we have aired a number of concerns and issues. I do not wish to underestimate their importance, or skate over failures, but the recent security record of the service has been good. There has been a 74 per cent. reduction in the rate of escapes and a 23.5 per cent. reduction in assaults.
The service came out well from the recent review. Ministers have taken responsibility for the service within a framework that allows the director general the necessary scope and freedoms to run what is a large and unique organisation. We are investing around £226 million of additional money to help to develop constructive regimes that help prisoners to avoid returning to crime following


their release. Together, those changes should help to address the concerns that have been raised by Sir David Ramsbotham.
Vivien Stern, former head of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, recently praised the Prison Service of England and Wales for its culture of knowing the difference between right and wrong, for its willingness to admit its mistakes and to strive to put things right, and for the courage and independence of prison governors in fighting for improvements in conditions. No one denies that there are difficulties and challenges to overcome, but the Government believe that the Prison Service and the arrangements for its higher management are broadly in good health as the millennium approaches.
We know that hon. Members will continue to voice their views and to press for those improvements. We will continue to respond.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am pleased to have secured the debate. I look forward to Members' contributions and to the Minister's response on a complex and often controversial subject.
I know from my many conversations with Members on both sides of the House that many in the Chamber today have had first-hand experience of myalgic encephalomyelitis—or ME as it is more commonly known—either as sufferers or through the suffering of relatives or close friends. I am especially pleased that the debate is taking place today as it is national ME awareness day.
Many Members will know that I have been active in reforming the all-party group on ME. I was pleased to be elected as its chair. One of the crucial tasks of those who campaign on the issue is to raise awareness of ME and its effects among the general public. One of the stated aims of all-party group is to raise awareness of the issues at Westminster. I am pleased that, to date, it has a membership of 134, as well as a number from another place.
My main focus since entering the House has been on the needs of my constituents, so Members will not surprised to hear that it was through meeting an extraordinary young woman in Great Yarmouth that I became involved in the ME campaign. My first experience of the hardship caused by ME came some years ago, when I met Tanya Harrison, who lives in Great Yarmouth. She is 23, and has had ME for at least the past 13 years. She experienced a gradual and continual deterioration in her health until she became so severely ill that she was referred, and subsequently admitted, to Great Yarmouth's James Paget hospital.
After months of intensive treatment, varying diagnoses and consultations with specialists, Tanya was eventually diagnosed as suffering from severe and chronic ME. For the subsequent seven years, she has been bedridden for most of the time and has continued to experience additional symptoms. At the beginning of last year, at the age of 22, she developed osteoporosis of the hips and osteopaenia of the spine—yet another consequence of living with severe and chronic ME.
Despite all the setbacks in her life, Tanya's determination has shone through and she grasps with admirable zeal every opportunity to highlight the plight of fellow ME sufferers. To that end, she launched the blue ribbon for awareness of ME campaign in April 1995. Her efforts culminated in the meeting in the Grand Committee Room on 14 May 1998, at which an international line-up of experts on ME addressed an audience of sufferers, along with many Members of Parliament. I am pleased to see that some hon. Members—including the Minister—are wearing the blue ribbon today.
What exactly is the disease? The literal definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis is inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, but that definition does not have the universal support of the medical establishment, because it almost implies brain pathology, which has not yet been clearly established for the condition. Post-viral fatigue syndrome, or post-infectious fatigue syndrome are other terms used when ME-like symptoms appear after viral infection.
From those terms, the hybrid definition of chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS, has appeared. The term encompasses all the previously mentioned syndromes and has been used increasingly over recent years because of its neutrality: it does not imply a specific cause and accepts that there may be a variety of causes, some physiological, some psychiatric and some involving an amalgam of factors.
The difficulty that the medical profession has with a common definition is an appropriate microcosm of the whole ME debate. That is all very disconcerting for the sufferer, whose main concerns are, "What is wrong with me?" and "What can I, or my doctor, do to make me better?" The confusion and fragmentation of approach are well summed up by the title of a book written in 1991 by David Bell: "The Disease of a Thousand Names".
Perhaps more alarming still is the significant weight of evidence to suggest that inappropriate treatments have been prescribed, as exemplified in a letter that appeared in the British Medical Journal of October 1997, from Dr. Alan Franklin, medical adviser on ME to several of the country's leading ME organisations. The letter, which seems to sum up the feelings of many sufferers, says:
Unfortunately, some doctors have trivialised this illness; ridiculed patients and their supporters and subjected a few of them, including children, to oppressive, perhaps even abusive forms of treatment.
Indeed, in the 1980s, ME attracted the most derogatory of labels, "yuppie flu", even though there is no evidence to suggest that it is more prevalent in one social class or grouping than another. We hope that such thinking can be consigned to history. I am optimistic that our debate today will make a contribution, however small, to a more considered approach to the disease, which is estimated to affect between 5,000 and 10,000 sufferers per 500,000 people in the United Kingdom, according to controversial figures produced by the royal colleges of medicine.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to escape the impression that the disease has split the medical and scientific communities into two major factions: those who believe that the root cause is psychological and those who support an organic causation. Medicine and science do not always provide clear-cut answers, and that was reflected in the observations in the report of the national task force on CFS/ME, which was produced in 1994.
On causation, the report says:
The distinction between physical illness and psychological illness is becoming progressively more blurred. For instance, many psychiatric diseases, including depression, have been shown to have demonstrable physiological and neuro-chemical disturbances. In addition we are gaining an understanding of the influence of psychosocial factors on the development and cause of physical diseases.
The report goes on:
However we live in a society which is used to thinking of illnesses as physical or psychological and which harbours differing attitudes towards these. For example, a number of patients with CFS are denied financial benefits on the grounds that these illnesses have been perceived as psychological.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I have apologised to my hon. Friend for the fact that I will be unable to attend the whole of this debate.
I was very sceptical about ME until 1992, when I suddenly discovered that I had it. I was told by the doctor in the House and by my consultant in general medicine at

Monklands hospital, Dr. Harrower, that in my case, as with about 80 or 90 per cent. of ME sufferers, the condition would probably go after about two years, and indeed it went after 20 months. I am very grateful for the remarkable sensitivity that John Smith showed at the time, when I was in the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that not all employers are so enlightened.
My hon. Friend has done us a great service by bringing the issue to the House. It has an impact on the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. By bringing the issue into the public domain, he has done a great service to a cause that calls for much more research, much more understanding and a more positive approach from people who, like me, were once sceptical.

Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed. I am sure that he deems himself fortunate to have recovered from ME; many are not so fortunate.
The report continues:
Since our understanding and management of diseases must take place within such a society, the debate about whether CFS is physical or psychological cannot be totally ignored. This debate has been based on three erroneous premises:
1. 'Because a physical illness exists therefore no psychological illness exists, or vice versa.' This either/or approach is wrong. Both types of illness may co-exist within the same person.
2. 'Because there is no evidence available to confirm a physical cause for an illness therefore the illness must have a psychological cause.' It may be psychological. Alternatively, it may be physical, and the absence of evidence to confirm this may be the result of limitations of current medical knowledge. For example, consumption was believed to be a psychological disorder before the discovery of the tubercle bacillus.
3. 'Because an illness has a psychological origin it is not disabling or not real.' This is not true.
The national task force report goes on to say:
Whatever the origin of the disease, or the views of their doctors, people with chronic fatigue syndromes are disabled. They need and deserve help and support".
On most aspects, the task force report is open minded, objective and balanced, and it appears to provide a good basis for advancing the cause in an all-embracing fashion. It certainly does not rule out an organic root to the problem of ME and it is honest in admitting the limits of current medical knowledge.
Anyone reading the document would be surprised to learn that the medical research establishment in the UK is not acting on one important element of the findings: the need for research into the organic causation of ME. The report is unambiguous about the need for a balanced and all-inclusive research programme, including both psychiatric and non-psychiatric disciplines.
Unfortunately, the report from the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners, on which so much emphasis has been placed, does not seem to give much, if any, support to research into organic causation. It recommends research into the neurobiological aspects of CFS; randomised controlled trials of treatment, especially in primary care; and management of CFS in children.
The report, which came out in October 1996, was commissioned by the previous Government's chief medical officer and compiled by a panel of 16 experts that


was top-heavy with psychiatrists or physicians believed by many to be biased towards a psychiatric diagnosis of ME.
Unsurprisingly, great emphasis is given to several studies indicating psychiatric disorder in CFS patients and the report concludes that about half the patients fulfilled the criteria for affective disorder and a further quarter had other psychiatric illnesses, primarily anxiety and sleep disorders. How many of us in the Chamber today can say we have not suffered from anxiety and sleep disorders at some time in our lives, especially during elections? Does that mean that we are suffering from a psychiatric disorder? I shall not ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule on that question. The expert committee rejects, for lack of evidence, any major role for a viral cause of CFS or for structural or functional abnormalities in muscle or the brain.
Many of the report's findings have been criticised by ME charities and associations, leading medical experts and medical journals. In a statement to The Lancet, Dr. Charles Shepherd, medical director of the ME Association, said:
the committee was rigged, with dissenting voices excluded".
That view was echoed by the lead author of a major physiological study, Durval Costa of University college, London, who told The Lancet:
The committee was too quick to reject his work because members had 'technical difficulty' with understanding whole-volume, single-photon emission tomography, the technique he used in his research.
Furthermore, in its editorial appraisal, entitled "Frustrating survey of chronic fatigue", The Lancet concluded:
We believe that the report was haphazardly set-up, biased, inconclusive, and is of little help to patients or their physicians.
There are numerous problems arising from the adoption of the findings of the royal colleges' report, but for the sake of brevity I shall concentrate on a few areas of particular concern, including the consequences for research into the disorder. Since the release of the report in October 1996, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council have not financed any research into the physical causes of ME. That has dismayed many doctors and scientists who believe that more research is required in the areas of virology, muscle dysfunction, energy production, and abnormalities in the immune system and several other neurological aspects.
Perhaps of even greater concern is the potential physical and psychological damage to patients, especially children, who are receiving the wrong treatment. In her appraisal of the royal colleges' report, Dr Terry Hedrick, who is an internationally respected expert in the evaluation of research and methodology, said:
Several clinicians I spoke with expressed concern about the child with CFS who unsuccessfully participates in a poorly developed program of cognitive behavioural therapy, or CBT, and/or graduated exercise and feels like a failure because he or she is not able to resume normal activities within a few weeks or months. We need to remember that unproven treatments, whether pharmacological or psychological, are capable of having negative side-effects".
Dr Hedrick is not alone in believing that psychiatrists are not always the best people to be treating ME patients and there is little doubt that her views have the backing

of most of the support groups and many thousands of patients who believe that they are receiving inappropriate treatment. However, busy GPs can hardly be blamed for recommending a particular course of treatment, if they are doing so on what they believe to be sound advice from a prestigious body of experts.
Although there are certain cardinal features for doctors to look for, diagnosis of ME can be difficult, as it is what some practitioners call a hidden illness. Indeed, there are a number of cases of erroneous diagnosis, which on occasions have been quite serious. Recent examples of incorrect diagnosis, which have appeared in medical journals, show that ME has been confused with cancers in some patients. Unfortunately, a significant minority of GPs still refuse to accept that ME exists as a clinical entity, and consequently treats those patients in an unsympathetic or, in some cases, hostile manner.
Furthermore, insurance companies could use the report as evidence for placing time limits on financial support, which could lead sufferers into severe financial difficulties at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. Government policy on welfare benefits could also be influenced by such reports. What impact did the report have on the perception of the illness by people at the Benefits Agency making decisions on sufferers' welfare payments? Sadly, employers do not always look favourably on employees who are diagnosed as suffering from psychological disorders and are very often likely to view physical illness with greater sympathy.

Mr. John McDonnell: There are numerous cases of people being hounded out of work by unsympathetic employers. I wish to cite the example in my constituency of Andrea Morgan. She was hounded out of work, and eventually won compensation at an industrial tribunal against the London borough of Hillingdon. She also suffered two years of hounding by benefits officers and having to undergo numerous medical tests to demonstrate that she was suffering from the disease. There is not only a lack of sympathy, but an active programme of employers hounding people out of work if they have the illness.

Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend—and I am sure that most hon. Members could probably tell similar stories from their constituencies. The stress that people experience when they fear that they will lose their jobs or may be forced to fight for their rights to benefit adds to the debilitating effect of ME.
There is little room for doubt that in a patient in whom the primary cause for ME is a psychiatric condition, benefit can be derived from the various courses of treatment recommended by the royal colleges. However, that has to be set against the negative consequences that I outlined earlier in my speech. If the balance is heavily tilted in favour of psychiatric causation, the objectivity of any diagnosis, and hence the exact definition of a patient's disorder, becomes more questionable. Not only does that have consequences for the patient: it makes accurate epidemiological studies much less valid, as such studies are likely to be based on bogus information.
The progress made in AIDS treatment should act as an example of what can be achieved by robust, correctly targeted and well-funded medical research. Although the miracle cure is not yet on the market, drugs have been


developed that are already available and producing encouraging results. Indeed, the American Food and Drug Administration has recently approved final-phase clinical trials for the world's first AIDS vaccine. However, Members with long memories will recall the early problems that the medical profession had with diagnosis, and that it was only through concerted medical research that a method of detecting the HIV virus in the blood was developed. While I accept that the two diseases may be different in the way they are transmitted and in various other respects, some useful lessons could be learned in comparing the approach of the medical research establishments to the two syndromes.
The pro-psychology bias of the UK's research effort has already been brought to the attention of the House in an early-day motion, submitted during ME awareness week last year, which stated:
That between 1996 and 1998 no resources were allocated by the Department of Health or the Medical Research Council to investigate the physical cause of ME.
In an answer to a parliamentary question asked on 27 April 1998, the Department of Health's funding of four research projects was revealed: two on the management of ME, one on cognitive behavioural therapy and a fourth on the neuropsychological pathogenesis of CFS. Those projects represent a total Government spending of £285,467 but not a penny of that money was allocated to finding a physical explanation for ME. I am sure many hon. Members feel, as I do, that there is a need for the balance of our research effort to be adjusted, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that imbalance. I should like to see the Government encouraging a number of other initiatives that would take the issue forward and enhance the knowledge base of the medical establishment.
First, there is an obvious need for an exhaustive and extensive epidemiological study of ME to discover just how widespread the disease has become and unlock more of the vital information that medics require if they are to diagnose and treat the disease successfully.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of my constituents, Mrs. Baxter, who is a member of the Tendring ME support group, has written to me about a young man in Clacton who has to travel some 80 miles to London for treatment from a specialist consultant. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an unreasonable distance to have to travel? The other point that has emerged from my support group in Tendring is that some of the research is into managing the illness, instead of treatment or a cure for the illness. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Wright: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Probably one of the greatest problems for ME sufferers depends on where they live. If they live in an area where doctors understand the problems of ME sufferers, they are fortunate indeed. Having to travel to London, as my hon. Friend's constituent does, adds to the stress. I also agree that insufficient funding has been made available for research into ME.
Such a study would need to address the duration of the illness, identify vulnerable age groups and examine the life styles of sufferers. It would also have to consider the variability of the disease according to gender, assess environmental factors, and gather a great deal of other invaluable data. A number of epidemiological studies and surveys have already been undertaken, but they have been on a small scale.
Perhaps the most cited study is the "Case History Research on ME", or the Chrome survey, set up in July 1995. Its purpose is to identify as many severely disabled ME sufferers as possible and to monitor and update, on an annual basis, the course of their illness over a 10-year period. That survey might provide a useful starting point for the broad-based study for which many medics, researchers and ME sufferers have called.
Secondly, great benefit could be gained from co-ordinating the data from all the information that has been gathered and creating a national database. For researchers and doctors to gain the maximum benefit from epidemiological data, a well-funded and expertly run information unit or centre would be an invaluable asset. An information centre would act not just as a data gatherer, but could also give advice on best practice.
In addition, it could support GPs in a number of different ways, such as by providing detailed information to aid accurate diagnosis. The close monitoring of treatments could also provide a useful function for the unit, as at present exercise regimes are often too harsh, or in some cases totally inappropriate. Using the information collated, it should be possible to produce a management manual for all those involved in the treatment of ME patients.
Perhaps such an initiative could be funded by a partnership of private and public funds. That would seem a logical step, as both the private sector and public services are victims of a disease that leads to the loss of millions of working days every year. Indeed, with so many children and young people such as Tanya growing up with the disease, and possibly never able to work, the work force of the future will be denied many talented people. That, in turn, will undoubtedly have implications for the economy.
Thirdly, I believe that there is some resonance between this debate and last year's debate on cancer, instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). That debate called for the creation of a national cancer institute to act as an umbrella organisation for clinicians, researchers, carers, voluntary organisations and other interested parties sharing the common cause of treating and curing cancer. The disease ME could lend itself to that approach equally well.
There is always room for healthy competition in any sphere of life, but it is important that we pool our knowledge for the overall good. Nowhere can that be more important than in the pursuit of cures and treatments to the major diseases that threaten the quality of our lives—and life itself.
As with AIDS and cancer, there is unlikely to be one single research project that produces a miracle cure to ME. Answers will emerge through the slow and painstaking research of many thousands of people working on the numerous different facets of the disease. There is a definite need for a fresh look at the way in which the medical profession approaches ME, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will leave the debate with that point in her thoughts.
With that in mind, I very much welcome the remarks made last year by the Government's chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, when he said that the disorder
is a real entity, distressing, debilitating",
and affecting many people.
That statement, together with the news that the Government have set up a working group to look at the disease, represents the best news for ME sufferers in many years and has been broadly welcomed. My only concern is that the working group should contain a broad cross-section of thinking and have an open mind on all aspects of the disease. If it does, we may have reached the turning point in the ME debate that Tanya, and the thousands like her, have been seeking for so many years.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on his initiative in seeking this debate, especially as today is the ME awareness day. I am a member of the all-party group that the hon. Gentleman has done so much to bring back to life. He is to be congratulated also on his efforts to raise awareness in the House about ME, and I hope that today's debate will go some way towards raising that awareness further.
My interest in ME began not all that long ago. At the Sutton carers centre in my constituency, I was invited to meet a group of parents whose children suffer from ME. It proved a very useful lesson. I was asked a series of questions about the way in which various public services cut the parents out when it came to dealing with their children. To be honest, I had no adequate answers to the questions that were put to me. I started to make inquires about ME and about how Governments—Labour and Conservative—had dealt with it over a period of years. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions last year, culminating in the early-day motion to which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth referred.
Moreover, as part of that awareness-raising exercise, I attended the meeting organised last year by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. I had the good fortune then to meet Mr. Graham Baker, the co-ordinator of the local support group in my constituency. Last Saturday, I was pleased to attend an event in my constituency that was part of the launch of the awareness week now taking place across the country. Despite the weather, that event succeeded in getting the message across to more people. There is no doubt that ME is the subject of too much misinformation, prejudice and ignorance. Anything that can be done to change that will go a long way towards helping sufferers.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth ended his speech with a quotation from Sir Kenneth Caiman, the chief medical officer. He said:
ME is a reality. It affects large numbers of people and poses a significant challenge to the medical profession.
I want to deal with three matters in this speech, which stem from my correspondence and the reading that I have done. They are the definition of ME, the overwhelming need for research, and the way in which different public services have different approaches and agendas when dealing with ME sufferers and their carers.
First, there is the question of definition. The material that I read made it clear that the sensitivities involved with ME are a minefield. For example, is the disease to be called ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome? Different terms can cause great offence to sufferers. There is no doubt that the use of words can provoke strong feelings.
In 1992, the World Health Organisation listed ME as a neurological brain disorder, but many people have expressed concern—outrage, even—at the 1996 report from the Royal College of Physicians. That attempted to define ME out of existence by lumping it in with a more generic term, chronic fatigue syndrome. As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth rightly noted, The Lancet was critical of the report, on the ground that it was too ready to dismiss viral causes of CFS in favour of structural and functional abnormalities in muscle or brain. In its editorial, The Lancet concluded that the report from the Royal College of Physicians was biased and inconclusive.
That report has fuelled the debate and, in some ways, caused further misconception. As a consequence, severe ME sufferers especially have been offered inappropriate treatments. They include cognitive behaviour therapy, which may be suitable for other categories of chronic fatigue syndrome, and graded exercise. The latter, again, may be appropriate in some cases, but, in others, can give rise to serious concern.
As I studied the question of definition, I began to realise how difficult the problem is. Even so, the national task force on CFS/ME concluded last year that, perhaps as a result of some the misconceptions and misunderstandings in the medical profession and of the pursuit of psychological rather than neurological explanations, the overall cost to the United Kingdom of the mismanagement of ME patients came to about £1 billion a year.
The same task force also identified an urgent need for training and the raising of awareness in the medical profession. It would be useful to know what role the working group is playing in that. The fact that the group was set up by the chief medical officer last year is welcome, but there is understandable cynicism among some of those who suffer ME and some carers about what the group will achieve. Can the Minister tell us something about the timetable and progress of the group, and when it might produce some tangible results for Members and for ME sufferers?
The group must lay the ground for new research into ME so that we may better understand its causes, prevalence and treatment. It is disappointing that neither the Department of Health nor the Medical Research Council has spent anything on identifying the physical or organic causes of ME. We must look to Australia or the United States of America to see any lead being given by Governments. A couple of years ago, the United States Government voted $11.8 million for ME research, and classed it as a priority one illness for research.
Several Members, including me, have tabled written questions on ME, and the Government have been reluctant to commit themselves to such research. I have some sympathy with the reason for their reluctance—the problem of definition and the lack of agreement among medical professionals. What role will the working group have in breaking that definitional logjam? In particular, what role will it play in commissioning future research? There would be some sense of purpose and direction if we could hear what progress is being made, if not on securing consensus, at least on deciding what definition will apply for an epidemiological survey.
On the matter of public services and benefits, I have received a vast number of e-mails over the past few days from people who suffer ME. They are concerned about


how the benefits system discriminates against them, and how advice to medical officers and adjudication officers is out of date, ill-informed and inadequate. All too often, poorly informed adjudication officers take appalling decisions which disadvantage many of our constituents, leading them to the trauma of the appeal process before they can receive the living allowance, incapacity benefit and other benefits to which they are entitled and which go some way towards meeting their needs. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) spoke persuasively on the way in which the system works.
All too often, people find themselves being labelled by the benefits system as malingerers. I did not choose that word: it was used in letters to me by sufferers of ME. That attitude is hardly surprising, given the advice offered in the "Handbook for Medical Service Doctors". It states:
There is no firm evidence to suggest that CFS is a physical disease. If you do not complete a mental health assessment, you must explain your reasons for not doing so.
The handbook continues in similar vein, giving adjudication officers almost no guidance and containing nothing that would allow them to help people suffering from impairment. As a consequence, our benefits system is disabling those people still further.
That problem goes further than the benefits system, reaching into education, social services and other areas. We need to know the roles of the working group, the Minister and the Department of Health in co-ordinating an approach that will ensure that the Government are consistent in their attitude towards ME. Consistency is needed in advice to education authorities, social services departments and so on.
As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth rightly said, the national task force, which reported in 1994 and 1998, provided a good basis for progress. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what will be done to deal swiftly with the recommendations of the 1998 report. Clarity is required in definitions of ME. Research is needed to determine the organic or physical causes, and we need more sympathetic and co-ordinated approaches across health, social care, education and all parts of the public service.

Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). It is still my family's delight to go to Great Yarmouth to sample fish and chip suppers in the market. They are much to be preferred to Delia Smith's boiled eggs and stuffed canaries.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis first came to my attention in the 1980s, when the phrase "yuppie flu" came attached. Coming from Norfolk and Norwich, I had no idea what yuppies were, and it is only since I came to London to work that I have seen yuppies going home on the No. 11 bus from Sloane square down the Kings road, Chelsea. I do not see much flu among them, but they certainly have other habits.
There has been much scepticism about whether ME exists. It is claimed that it is non-specific in its symptoms. It has no specific physical signs, and no consistent blood, pathological or radiological abnormalities are associated with it. It seems to be confined to some populations and not others, although that point is disputed. Published

evidence from randomised trials suggests that intervention with cognitive therapy and similar psychiatric intervention significantly affect its outcome.
There has been a tendency in the medical profession, which is still persistent, to dismiss ME. With their usual delicacy, members of the profession tend to tell patients to pull themselves together. They associate ME with patients whom they often see as being not quite the ticket. Their delicacy manifests itself similarly in other aspects of medical assessment such as the all-work test for welfare benefits. Again, people are told to pull themselves together, and a job will come easily to them.
On the other hand, a large and growing lobby believes strongly in the physical existence of the disease, and that lobby is supported by research. Various treatments have been espoused by sufferers. The existence of the condition is recognised by the British Medical Journal, and the Royal College of Physicians has given the disease cautious recognition, despite dubbing it chronic fatigue syndrome and alluding to its obscure cause and nature.
Despite the often polarised arguments about the subject, I have no doubt that the many of my constituents who suffer are desperately ill and feel let down by modern medicine. The name ME has been dubbed inappropriate by some, as the disease is sometimes not myalgic and there is often little evidence of encephalitis or myelitis. Argument still rages over whether it is physiological or psychological, with a psychiatric component.
I have conducted a web search country by country on ME, and there are many more hits from the United States than from anywhere else. However, the number for the USA is only double that from the United Kingdom, and the figures need to be adjusted for web use and population. Britain has far more hits than Australia and Canada, and there is little evidence of ME in continental Europe, including France, Italy and Germany. There is nothing from Africa, Asia or south America. This provides an illustration of how seriously the problem is taken across the world.
A recent survey of senior house officers in my local hospital, the Norfolk and Norwich, asked whether they had come across ME in their experiences around the world. A Malaysian said that it did not exist as far as he knew, and a Romanian said the same. The German SHO was certain that it did not exist in Germany. We shall publish that survey soon in the British Medical Journal.
Those SHOs may be right to say that ME does not exist, but it is very real to the sufferers whom I meet in my surgeries and in clinics. ME is a prime case for the evidence-based medical approach of which we have heard so much in the House over the past couple of years. Evidence-based medicine is a conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. That approach would lead to evidence-based health care and to clinical practice based on the best available evidence, using strategies derived from clinical epidemiology and medical information. ME requires exactly such a thorough approach.
There is no diagnostic test for ME and no known cause. There may be several causes, which is not unknown in medicine. There may even be one cause that manifests itself as several symptoms. There are interesting overlapping symptoms with Gulf war syndrome and glandular fever, which makes it difficult for general


practitioners to diagnose. Much more research is needed on such stress-related illnesses. As the human genome project comes on stream in the next few years, a diagnostic procedure at DNA level may unravel some of the conflicting syndromes and stress-related illnesses. There may be a common factor through which we can categorise them together.
The patients are definitely suffering and, sadly, there is no coherent approach to understanding the causes—be they viruses, hormones, chemicals or whatever—or developing a better diagnosis. The contrast with cancer research is amazing.

Mr. Andy King: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest battle for ME sufferers is getting people to believe that they truly suffer from the symptoms and the disabilities that they feel that they have? The medical profession is unsympathetic. I have come across ME since the 1980s in my work in social services and as chair of social services. The debate about psychological against physiological causes means that it is little wonder that people with ME suffer stress and depression, because they make no headway in getting recognition of their situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that more sympathy and understanding are required from the medical profession?

Dr. Gibson: I agree, but the hardest thing for GPs or medically trained people is to admit that they do not know. It is a comedown that they cannot handle. It is a training problem, which is why the Government are right to consider training medical people in a way that is more socially active, more interactive with the patient and less dismissive. It is a major problem.
It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of ME. The best studies have been done in the United States in four large cities where it is estimated that about eight in 100,000 people aged 18 or more have ME and are under medical care. A more recent study in Seattle, where they do these things in a big way, shows a figure of 265 people per 100,000. The figures vary dramatically where the problem is taken seriously. It is estimated that 500,000 or more people in the United States suffer from the condition. It affects all racial and ethnic groups and both genders, although there is some evidence that it is more prevalent among young women.
There is a paucity of study with adolescents. All my constituents who have seen me on this are adolescents, mostly women. It is important that the unique problems of chronically ill adolescents, such as family problems, social and health interactions, education and social interaction with peers, should be considered part of their care. That is too radical for the medical fraternity to handle. The dissemination of information to parents, families and school authorities is essential. The National Institutes of Health in Washington, DC has started to consider the issue, but it is the only place that I know that takes that approach, and the problem of ME, seriously.
The question whether ME is contagious is often raised. Original studies in Nevada and Florida suggested that there were ME clusters, but subsequent results have not substantiated that. That does not mean that we can rule out the possibility of an infectious agent associated with

the condition that reflects the development of the illness. Important questions remain to be answered on the possible reactivation of latent viruses, such as herpes viruses, in people's bodies and the possible role of infectious agents in some cases. That cannot be ruled out yet.
If we are to develop political and medical approaches to ME, we need to understand its clinical course. That would help to facilitate communication between physicians, doctors and patients, to evaluate new treatments and to address insurance and disability issues. The clinical course varies between patients. Recovery rates are unknown. There can be wholesale recovery, whatever that means—for instance, does it mean going back to work? Most often, people suffer periodic lapses. The disease is usually cyclical. Some people grow worse and never completely recover. There is a spectrum of problems.
We must do more to treat ME seriously, and to ensure that the medical profession does. We must eliminate the scepticism associated with the illness. There is an unmet need for ME treatment and a dearth of resources for patients and research. Suspicion of its authenticity remains. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government accept the validity of the disease and ensure that sufferers will not be prejudiced in welfare benefit reforms.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on introducing the debate. I am glad to speak because I am aware of the experience of constituents suffering from ME who have approached me. I first raised the issue in the House about eight years ago, since when more and more men and women have approached me about the serious problems that they encounter. They are such that we must bring them to the attention of the House.
People have problems in following employment. Some have left employment through sickness, but they are denied their pension rights because the illness has not been established. Superannuation funds, particularly public ones, will not accept that they had to cease work because of ill health. I have a case involving a young woman who worked for a national bank. The stress of her employment led her to develop ME, as has been certified by her medical practitioner and a specialist. She went before the all-work test panel and was successful in that it has been accepted that she suffers from ME, but the superannuation fund will not pay her the sickness pension to which she is entitled. I hope that this debate will mean that some of the people who are responsible for denying benefit to many of our constituents will realise that any benefit of the doubt should be given to ME sufferers.
The payment of social benefits is a further problem. People have explained to me that on some days they feel good, but they then go downhill. Adjudication officers and others from the Benefits Agency cannot accept that such people have days where they feel good and then days when they feel that they cannot put one foot in front of the other. The Minister must take note of our concerns.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth because of his knowledge and technical expertise. Voluminous information has been presented today that should help to create a situation whereby


people certified as suffering from ME will have no problem in having the illness identified or in getting benefits paid. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take serious note of what we are saying in the Chamber today. I ask that other Departments, such as the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment, should also take note of what we are saying on behalf of the many people whom we represent. Many forms of hardship are created for many ME sufferers: they are unable to continue their employment; they are unable to receive the appropriate benefits; and they feel that they are socially excluded from their communities, because other people do not understand that they suffer from the stress of employment.
The constituent who visited me recently made it clear that she would have preferred to continue her employment. When her ME was certified, she was advised, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), that it could clear up within two years. She hoped, therefore, that she would be able to return to work. Sadly, that did not happen. However, because she could not return to work within two years, she has been informed that the superannuation fund cannot consider her claim as she should have made it earlier. That person was doing her level best to return to work, but, because her condition deteriorated, she was unable to do so. Her condition is still not recognised by those people who decide whether pensions or benefits payments should be made to her.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of my constituents, Mrs. Baxter, who is involved with a support group, has written to me about a similar case. She was a teacher. She has not been able to teach for the past 11 years, but she really tries to work because she loves her job. Her case offers a prime example. Some weeks, she can work for one hour, or possibly two, but she then has no further energy to cope with more work. Such people want to work, but are unable to because of this disease.

Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend and me can be mirrored a hundred times in each of our constituencies. We all know of people who do not want to remain on benefit; they want to return to work, but find it impossible because of their physical and mental condition.
I realise that other Members want to take part in the debate. I wanted only to make those points on behalf of my constituents. We need to record such serious matters in the House and my right hon. Friend the Minister should take them seriously. I put it to her that the time has now come for us to give serious consideration to identifying and accepting ME. More research must be carried out so that we can prevent the disease, but, in the meantime, ME sufferers should not be denied recognition of their illness, or the benefits to which they are entitled. We talk about reducing social exclusion; this is one way in which we could start to do so. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister to go back to her colleagues and consider the serious issues that have been presented to the House today, and to ensure that the people whom we represent receive the fairness and justice to which they are entitled.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on initiating the debate and on affording us the opportunity

to discuss this important subject. I also congratulate him and his colleagues on the all-party group on the tremendously good work that they are doing.
I have a slight feeling of deja vu, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth will be aware, I was the founder chairman of the all-party group on ME. I started it when I was a newly elected Member of Parliament in 1987. I want to share with the House the experiences that were brought to my attention. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is not an easy word to say, but at that time 1 had never heard of myalgic encephalomyelitis at all. I heard some insulting expressions, such as "yuppie flu", but was not too sure what that meant; it seemed to be a rude description that people used for something that they knew nothing about.
In late 1987, there was a message on the answering machine in my constituency office from a constituent who was obviously distressed. I realised that that lady was ill and needed my help, but the tape on the machine ran out during her call and she did not leave her name or her telephone number. I could only hope that she would call back. Ten days later, I received a letter from her; that was when I was introduced to myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is a horror.
I do not want to go over the ground that has been gone over so excellently this morning, but will make some points based on my experience. My constituent was involved with the charity organisation, the ME action campaign—that is how I got to know Clare Francis, who was herself a sufferer from the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) will remember that Brynmor John—formerly the Member of Parliament for Pontypridd—suffered from ME. He helped me to prepare one of the two private Member's Bills on ME, which I presented during the early part of my parliamentary career. That is where my feeling of deja vu comes in, because that took place 11 years ago. My ten-minute Bill asked for research into diagnostic tests, because the disease could not be diagnosed and still cannot be diagnosed. It proposed that there should be an epidemiological study—epidemiological is another difficult word which I learned to pronounce.
I shall never forget that, while I was preparing some press releases before the presentation of my Bill—on 23 February 1988—the BBC in Northern Ireland asked me to do a live telephone interview for their morning programme. I was telephoned at my flat, and I explained the purpose of my Bill. The press releases went out and I presented my Bill to the House. A few days later, I received a phone call at the House from a woman in Northern Ireland who had heard my radio interview. She had been in the process of committing suicide because although she knew that she was ill, no one would listen her. She was trying to commit suicide when she heard an interview with a Member of Parliament—someone she had never heard of—who was talking about myalgic encephalomyelitis and what we were trying to do about it. She told me that hearing that interview had given her some hope and had stopped her from committing suicide on that morning.
A tragic aspect that we have not discussed is the high incidence of suicide among ME sufferers. The woman did not leave her name or telephone number, but that experience has stayed with me because, although I was


delighted that she rescued herself that time, little has been done to help ME sufferers since 1988 and I do not know what has happened to her since.
An estimated 150,000 people suffer from ME, and I suspect that the true incidence is significantly greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was right to mention stress in relation to ME, but the impact of stress more commonly arises from misdiagnosis or from people denying that someone is ill—saying there is nothing wrong. Clare Francis was told, "There is something wrong with your sex life—give yourself a shake, woman, there's nothing wrong with you." Such remarks come from snobbery or ignorance on the part of the medical profession. As has been said, doctors do not like to say that they do not know and, sooner than say that, they will say that there is nothing wrong or that something they do know about is wrong.
Most of the GPs working in the national health service are excellent providers of health care, but there are a few who, if they cannot tell a patient to stop smoking, stop drinking or go on a diet, will send that person to a psychiatrist. That is part of the problem: if doctors cannot understand the illness, they say that it is psychosomatic, with the result that 16 per cent. of the NHS budget is spent on psychosomatic illnesses. That is a fantastic sum of money, and I have to ask how much of that expenditure arises from misdiagnosis or from people being referred to psychiatrists or psychologists because doctors do not understand or do not want to understand their condition.
Having said that, I do not want to be unfair to the medical profession, for, thanks to certain doctors, an increasing number of GPs now recognise ME as an illness. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for ME sufferers, but only we in Parliament can bring that light closer. I ask the Minister to tell her advisers, some of whom will be sympathetic and others less so, to press on and to commission proper research and epidemiological studies so as to help ME sufferers. She should invite Treasury Ministers' support by directing their attention to ME and the financial costs relating to misdiagnosis, because they might be able to save money. Let us get proper diagnostic tests and research to help the many sufferers from ME.
Because we lack hard information, there are many opinions as to what causes ME and what its nature is. My lay experience suggests that ME is an environmental illness, and that stress is not a cause but a result of the illness. Those of us who have met people who suffer badly from ME and are disabled by it will know that they often have multiple allergies, but that aspect has not yet been properly explored. I always ask ME sufferers who write to me or come to my surgeries whether they have had any allergy tests; invariably, the answer is no. Some of the doctors who understand the illness direct patients to get allergy tests, but the link should be explored in greater depth.
Some years ago, I heard the immune system and the impact of stress on it described as the pail under the dripping tap. People who are healthy and fit can cope with a little stress in their life, but the impact of stress on someone who is ill can take that person over the edge—the pail overflows. ME sufferers' pails are brimming with their illness and related experiences, but often the thing

that pushes them over the top is for them to go to a doctor and ask for help, only to be told that there is nothing wrong with them.
We show deference to our doctors—when we send for a doctor in the middle of the night because we are ill, the first thing that we do when he arrives is apologise for being ill and for disturbing him. When a doctor says that there is nothing wrong, but the person concerned knows that there is something wrong, it can cause great problems. If the doctor tells a family that the illness suffered by their son, daughter, wife or husband is all in his or her own mind, however much the family loves that person, they will trust the doctor—the professional—in the belief that he must know what he is talking about. However, the truth is that, all too often, the doctor does not know, and such misdiagnoses cause stresses within the family that add to the burden on the patient of the stress caused by ME.
I ask the Minister to keep an open mind and to listen to what we have said today. This Government, more than any other, have to offer the helping hand to ME sufferers. Let us have proper research, let us go out and look for a proper diagnostic test, let us commission that epidemiological study, and let us give the tens of thousands of sufferers of ME the help that they need.

Liz Blackman: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on having secured this important debate. I shall focus on the group of ME sufferers whom the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) cites as the reason for his becoming interested in the subject—children, who are isolated from support systems. I should also like to amplify the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) about the paucity of research into young people who suffer from ME.
A study conducted in 1997 estimated that as many as 25,000 children suffer from ME. There is no identifiable cause of the condition, but, according to the 1994 national task force report on ME, one of the most common triggers appears to be viral infection. If so, it is hardly surprising that so many children suffer from ME, as I should imagine that their immune systems are less robust than those of adults. The same study described children's symptoms as severe shaking, difficulty in swallowing and mental confusion. That would be frightening to anyone, but doubly so to children.
It is obvious that the schooling of children with such symptoms will be affected. Therefore, it is not surprising that the 1997 study to which I referred identified ME as the most common cause of long-term absence from school. That is enormously worrying. The Government place great emphasis on, and have targeted significant resources at, children's learning. We recognise that the acquisition of good skills equips children for life.
The education system has always been quite good at supporting off-site learning for children with medical problems so long as those problems have a clear label and are specifically identified. Resources are triggered by medical diagnosis. If that diagnosis cannot be made, children are denied vital teaching, learning and medical support, and untold damage is done to them now and in the future. Early intervention and diagnosis triggers those resources and leads to a much speedier recovery.
I refer the House to dyslexia and its history. At one time, dyslexia was not recognised by many sceptical professionals. Diagnosis did not occur and support was poor and haphazard—or, in many cases, non-existent. That is no longer the case: diagnosis is now speedy, resources are available and our children are far better served as a result. We can apply to ME the lessons we have learned from the dyslexia experience. I am delighted that the Department of Health chief medical officer has described ME as a "real entity". However, there is still a lack of research into ME, a lack of understanding about its causes, a lack of skill in diagnosis, a disparity of services, patient mismanagement, a lack of appropriate medical training and a degree of prejudice—although that is diminishing.
I am interested to hear how the Minister will respond to the issues that we have flagged today. How are the Government addressing them and what are their plans for the future?

Mr. Alan Duncan: I shall not detain the House for long as we want to hear the Minister's response to the debate. All hon. Members are forced to admit that this is pretty mysterious territory, and we join in condemning those who are tempted to mock ME because it cannot be readily diagnosed or explained. I infer from the excellent contributions this morning that the medical establishment is too often inclined to take the view that what it cannot explain, it will not recognise. That prejudice must be overcome.
Conservative Members fully support ME awareness day—although I must confess that it is slightly disorienting to see so many Labour Members sporting blue ribbons on their lapels. Perhaps there is a deeper message about new Labour—although it does not apply to the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) or for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
Several points have emerged upon which I shall dwell briefly. We clearly need uniform ME diagnosis criteria. It appears that those criteria will be difficult to establish, but we must try to achieve that goal. There is a shortage of medical expertise in diagnosing ME and a shortage of consultants who can accept referrals for the condition. In treating ME, the national health service must adapt and learn to accept that a multi-disciplinary approach is necessary. Carers can also play an important role. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that point, which is not addressed in the Government's carers strategy.
The main theme that has emerged from this morning's debate is the need for research. Everyone is struggling for information and both those who suffer from the illness and those who treat it are calling for more research. That would also appear to be Labour Members' main plea. I also sense that ME sufferers face an absolute minefield when claiming benefit. Will the Minister outline what criteria she thinks should apply to those who qualify for benefit so that there may be clear guidelines—if that is possible—and no argument about whether people are genuine sufferers?
Many hon. Members have pleaded this morning for more research into ME. Sympathy for ME sufferers binds hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is all very well our being terribly sympathetic and wearing blue ribbons, but we must ask whether the Government intend

to do anything about it. Our concern will not add up to a row of beans if the Government do not act. As a significant number of Labour Members are calling for more research into ME, will the Minister announce today what the Government's policy in this area is and will be?

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for introducing this important debate. I pay tribute to him both for his contribution today and for his tireless work on behalf of ME sufferers through the all-party group. I also pay tribute to my many hon. Friends and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to highlight, through the painful experiences of their constituents, the need for action and the need to do much more for ME sufferers. That task will not be easy, and I shall set out where we are in relation to Government action and where we need to go.
I recognise the important work of the ME Association, made possible by grant aid and the Department of Health's section 64 programme. This is a major area of health policy which is changing and progressing—although perhaps not as quickly as we should like. We are engaged in a process of discovery and will apply our conclusions to the provision of support for ME sufferers through the national health service.
I want to pick up the point about carers and ME sufferers. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to their constituents who suffer from ME and who have taught them about the seriousness of the condition. It is essential that we convey our willingness to learn about, and to act upon, the experience of ME sufferers. We know very little about the causes of ME and we are groping to establish a proper framework for treatment. Therefore, we owe a debt of gratitude to those ME sufferers who are prepared to share their experiences with us. In the absence of a clear understanding about causes, we can make at least some progress by learning more about the condition and by applying the painful lessons of what it is like to live with ME.
Uncertainty about causation means that, certainly departmentally, the condition is referred to by two names: chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS; and myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME.
As we have heard this morning, CFS/ME is a distressing, debilitating and disabling condition, possibly initiated by viral infection. It is complex and difficult, and poses a challenge to medicine and the NHS. I accept that medicine is not always sufficiently humble when presented with a challenge, the origins of which it does not fully understand. Despite a great deal of commitment from professionals and voluntary organisations, enormous gaps remain in our knowledge about the cause, diagnosis and treatment for some conditions, of which CFS/ME is a prime example.
That is why the previous chief medical officer, with strong ministerial support, set up a working group to take the first steps towards improving the quality of understanding, support and care for patients with this distressing and debilitating condition. Although we do not understand its causes, we know that the condition is real for those who suffer from it and for their families. I hope that we can make a fresh start in our work on CFS/ME.


Tanya Harrison, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth referred, is a member of the chief medical officer's working group.
I turn now to what we know about the incidence and prevalence of CFS/ME. It affects many people and their families in Britain and elsewhere. Information about actual numbers of people with the condition is hard to establish because of the problems in producing a precise definition of the illness. It is thought that as many as one or two people in every thousand may have the illness, with numbers peaking in the 20 to 40 age group.
We know that the condition is more prevalent among women and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) made clear, it can, distressingly, affect children as young as five. More recently, we have become aware that CFS/ME is becoming increasingly common among school-age children. For that reason, we have established, as part of the CMO's working group, a sub-group that will specifically examine children's needs. Representatives of the Department for Education and Employment and social services will sit on that sub-group.
Differences in age and sex distribution, social conditions and, possibly, genetic composition probably also affect the frequency of CFS/ME. There is probably under-reporting of the illness in some social groups. Defining the condition is fraught with difficulties. A definition of CFS/ME has been the subject of much debate, inside and outside the medical profession. It is more often defined by what it is not than by what it is. Those difficulties are compounded by the way in which the condition has been given different names.
Terminology is important, but we need to move beyond the rather doctrinaire debate about names to tackle the yawning gap in our understanding about causation, provide better care and support and concentrate on treatment and rehabilitation. If the exact cause of the condition were known, as well as the method of acquiring it and its pathophysiology, I am sure that there would be less focus on what the illness is called.
There is a great deal of debate about the causes of CFS/ME. As hon. Members have said this morning, some doctors believe that the cause is primarily psychological, but others are equally vociferous in saying that there is an entirely organic basis to the illness. No one has yet been able to provide conclusive evidence to support either view, although research is now increasingly concentrated on the organic aspects of the illness. As one of my hon. Friends said, there is a great deal of research in the United States on the organic origins of CFS/ME and the physiological changes that it creates. We hope to learn from research in this country, but fortunately such learning knows no international boundaries.

Mr. Duncan: I apologise for intervening because I do not want to take up the Minister's time, but, in the

remaining minutes of the debate, will she announce positive action that the Government will take in response to the requests of her hon. Friends?

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman should contain his impatience because I shall certainly set out what action the Government will take.
The Department of Health funds research through different sources, and has recently funded research on CFS/ME at the university of Manchester on "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome." We look forward to the results of that research being made available.
I underline the fact that the Medical Research Council is always willing to consider new ideas for research and will judge applications on their scientific merits. Everything that we have heard this morning demonstrates that there is a need to prod scientists with an interest and competence in the condition to consider submitting proposals so that we can close some of the gaps in our knowledge.
Important research is being carried out in related areas, including the study of molecules and cells, and genetics and infections and immunity, which will inform our understanding of the causes of CFS/ME.
The Department of Health has been funding, through its own research and development programme, a research project called "Should GPs manage chronic fatigue syndrome? A controlled trial", which has recently reported. Unfortunately, its results were inconclusive. In addition, the NHS standing group on health technology has recently identified the latest series of priority areas for which it anticipates commissioning primary research or systematic reviews. One of the topics identified is management strategies for chronic fatigue syndrome.
In all cases, priorities for our research budgets reflect analysis of the burden of disease, potential benefits and broader Government priorities. I hope that the message will go out to those with an interest in pursuing research on CFS/ME.
The difficulties of defining a cause for CFS/ME mean that there is no single diagnostic test for the condition. Diagnosis hinges largely on the elimination of other possible conditions through a series of specific tests. Treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms that patients can experience is, therefore, a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients. That causes problems of inconsistency and creates difficulties in developing the evidence-based protocol that we want increasingly to be applied in the NHS. Treatment is largely focused on the relief of symptoms rather than on curing the condition, which should clearly be the aim.
The working group is due to report in summer 2000. There is wide representation in the group so that we can look beyond the medical issues to consider management, care and support for carers. The group includes representatives of carers and voluntary groups. We shall, on the basis of the chief medical officer's report, issue practical advice to the NHS to improve support and, in turn, the quality of life of people who suffer from this awful and debilitating condition.

A63 (Melton Junction)

Mr. David Davis: Before I begin what I promise the Minister will be a very brief speech on this matter, I should like to put on record, and communicate through him, my gratitude to the Deputy Prime Minister, who, despite the pressure on his time, has afforded me a meeting and paid a great deal of attention to this essentially local issue. I hope that the Minister will pass on that compliment.
I shall first describe the nature and location of the road and the junction. The House will know that the ports of Liverpool and Hull are joined by the M62—part of the great motorway network covering the country. The last 25 miles, or thereabouts, of the road into Hull is not motorway but dual carriageway—the A63, which, apart from some long, sweeping curves, is a very fast road in every respect.
At the Melton junction on this fast road, there is a set of traffic lights which, due to the road's sweeping curves, are virtually invisible to on-coming traffic until a few hundred metres away. They are the only lights between Liverpool and Hull. Indeed, in terms of the motorway network, they are the only lights between London and Hull, Bristol and Hull or Birmingham and Hull, for that matter. Because the lights are almost invisible until traffic is nearly upon them, reacting to them is very difficult, particularly if, for any reason, there is a tailback.
Psychologically, the road is a motorway, but physically it is virtually a country road, with crossings, very complex five-phase traffic lights and, just a little further along from the junction, a right turning into a village road. That is not at all what one would expect of a road on which traffic travels at such speed.
As a result, there have been many accidents over the past five years. There were fatal vehicle accidents in 1994 and 1996, and a double fatality in March this year. A pedestrian was killed near the lights, and a further double fatality occurred at the Colby Park crossing, just a short distance from the junction. It is only by the grace of God that there was not yet another fatality when a small girl on a bicycle was narrowly missed by three cars and hit by a fourth. She was badly hurt, but, thank God, survived. In the past decade, there have been 40 accidents involving injury, in which almost 60 people have been hurt. Of course, many other accidents have not been reported because they involve only damage, not injury.
This is the worst traffic blackspot in the Humberside police area. Indeed, it is the worst within a 50-mile radius of the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency and, of course, mine, as we are near neighbours. Why?
Police statistics tell us a great deal. The problem is not weather-driven: 90 per cent. of accidents have occurred when there has been perfectly good visibility. Nor, despite what I said earlier, is the problem due to people not knowing the road. Some 70 per cent. of accidents occur on the westbound carriageway that leaves Hull. Almost by definition, therefore, drivers are local or have been through the junction before. In addition, in the majority of accidents where there has been some identifiable driver error—a blameworthy component, as it were—the blameworthy driver is local. It is therefore not just a case of people being surprised by road conditions.
The problem is the design of Melton junction and the associated Colby Park crossing further up the road. The crossing is appropriate to an earlier era. It is appropriate to a low-speed, low-intensity road, not—psychologically—a motorway that carries 40,000 vehicles a day. I shall be blunt: I do not think that my constituents should face the fatal consequences of 1950s road design as we enter a new century. Nor do my constituents think they should.
The matter is one of enormous local concern. A large campaign to solve the problem has attracted the support of many local individuals and businesses, all local parish councils, the local authority, the local police force and our much-respected local newspaper the Hull Daily Mail.
What can we do? Clearly, a new road junction is needed. We need a junction that is capable of dealing with traffic growth of at least 4 per cent. per annum, as well as with increases as a result of local development. I shall return to that. Meanwhile, it is immediately necessary somehow to tackle the cause of the accidents: the speed of the traffic going through the junction. Until we have a new junction, I want the speed limit on a one-mile stretch either side of the Melton junction to be cut to 50 mph. To enforce that, I want traffic cameras and active policing, and I want to ensure that everybody understands that exceeding the speed limit will lead to certain conviction. I want the Minister to tell me today that the Government intend to issue orders to achieve that end, and that they will ensure that resources are available.
Given the sort of problems thrown up by traffic cameras, a solution is not as simple as it looks. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. I stress that it is important that such action is taken virtually immediately.
More important in the longer term, there must be a new junction. There is a grade-separated junction in the road expenditure plans of the Department and the Highways Agency, which is rather inaccurately described as a private finance initiative project—the Minister may want to tell us about that—but the projections for it seem to assume, as do Highways Agency responses to local developers and the council, a completion date of 2006. In other words, the junction will be completed in seven years' time. How many lives that will cost I do not know. I know that it will be too many. One death is too many; if we do not act, there will be more.
The Minister knows that I have been a member of the Cabinet and have served in Departments. I do not therefore subscribe to the Whitehall economics of death, if I may put it quite so starkly—the idea that one can value loss of life in economic terms. Every death is a tragedy and a mortal loss to the wives, husbands, children, mothers, fathers and loved ones of those who die. I do not want there to be one more death on the road. I want the new junction to be built as soon as is physically possible.
East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council and the local developer involved believe that, with reasonable good fortune, the project could be completed by 2002 or 2003 and that, even if there were a public inquiry, it should be achievable before 2004. Indeed, so confident is the council of that timetable that one of its officers told me that it is willing to act as the agency for completing the project. In order to achieve it, the necessary funding must be available, obviously. In addition, however, there must be the political will to give the project its proper priority and, if I may be blunt, the Highways Agency must get its finger out and get on with it.
I am not interested in scoring political points. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister drives through the junction regularly, and he has made it clear to me that he understands the problem only too well and wants it to be solved—for which, as I have said, I am grateful. So this is not a political battle. If anything, it is a battle with bureaucracy.
We all know the problem: capable and well-meaning civil servants and Government agencies face competing demands from all over the country for money, time and scarce resources. The understandable human response is to deal with such demands in turn, carefully and at a steady pace. I am afraid that Whitehall has a tendency to gold-plate and to be over-cautious in its approach. That, in turn, slows things down even more. Such an approach is no doubt entirely rational, but, in the meantime, this stretch of road is killing people. It is doing so with inexorable regularity and, as traffic flows inevitably increase, the problem will inevitably get worse. The project therefore needs to be given high priority and needs to be approached with a sense of urgency and a determination to complete by 2002–03, not 2006. I ask the Minister to ensure that his colleagues devote every effort to achieving that target.
I shall conclude my speech so that the Minister may have his say and respond positively. In summary, in the immediate term, I want a new 50 mph speed limit. I want it to be strictly policed, with speed cameras and full enforcement. I want a new junction, to be as fast as possible within the law. That is what I ask of the Government, and that is what I ask the Minister to comment on today.
I know that that involves numerous agencies, national and local, government and quasi-independent, public and private; and I know from ministerial experience that that often involves knocking heads together to get people to agree. If it would advance my constituents' cause, I should be happy to convene a meeting of all the relevant parties to hammer out a solution to the problem once and for all, and I should be delighted to invite the Deputy Prime Minister to chair it. I can think of no one better on the Labour Benches to knock heads together—he has a reputation for it. Whatever it takes, I will support.
In the first years of the new millennium, the people of Yorkshire deserve better than a dangerous 1950s road on a major route. I hope and trust that the Government will do all in their power to help me get them a better road and a safer future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on securing the debate. I well understand his arguments and the strength of feeling in the locality about the junction. Although I am not familiar with the junction, I do, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, work very closely with a colleague who is extremely familiar with it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Whitty, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, yesterday evening to discuss the issue. I thank him on

their behalf for the very constructive approach that he took in the meeting and the important and significant suggestions that he made, some of which he has mentioned today. I shall pass on his kind comments of appreciation for the interest that the Deputy Prime Minister has taken in the subject.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take road safety issues very seriously indeed. That concern is not an add-on to our transport policy but an integral part of everything that we do.
It may be appropriate to put the matter into the national context before I discuss the specific subject to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention.
We are fortunate in having one of the best all-round road safety records in the world. Much of that is due to the high standard of road engineering and to significant advances in vehicle design and standards. Although major road improvement schemes contribute to our safety record, our attention to detail also contributes to it. Some of the most cost-effective measures for reducing casualties are fairly modest road improvements.
In the past two years alone, more than £100 million has been allocated—as part of the annual, long-term local capital expenditure round—to small-scale engineering measures specifically designed to reduce accidents and casualties. But however good our roads are, and however safe our vehicles, we must recognise that human error is one of the major contributory factors. In fact, it is a key factor in about 95 per cent. of road accidents. This is at least as much a question of attitude as of lack of driving skill.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on a long-term road safety strategy, with targets for reducing casualties by 2010. It is taking a little longer than we had expected because we are also carrying out the speed policy review promised in last year's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone".
It will obviously be sensible to synchronise the new road safety strategy and the speed review. The right hon. Gentleman's comments about the junction amply show the relevance of linking the two issues. Excessive or inappropriate speed is a factor in a third of road casualties, and persuading drivers to keep to a safe speed is likely to be our biggest challenge in the next decade.
Our current aim is to publish the strategy in the autumn. It will cover a range of road safety issues, including driver training; child safety; pedestrians and cyclists; impairment through drink, drugs or fatigue; vehicle standards; enforcement of penalties; and, of course, speed.
The strategy will set a target for reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured. As previously announced, the target will be no less demanding than the 1987 target of a one-third reduction in all casualties by 2000. We are also considering a target to prevent any increase in casualties, including relatively minor injuries.
We also recognise the need to ensure that safety is at the heart of our developing integrated transport policy. We have agreed exactly that approach with the Highways Agency, which looks after the motorways and trunk roads for which Ministers are directly responsible. The agency's business plan for 1999–2000 contains proposals to invest £78 million in improving road safety on the trunk road network.
The guidance that we have issued to local authorities for putting together their local transport plans says that we expect them to consider road safety issues in all relevant policies, including social policies and measures to encourage walking and cycling. We shall be looking to local authorities to establish a strategic approach to their road safety problems, and to work in partnership with others to develop local solutions to local problems.
For example, it can take many years to deliver expensive engineering work. In the meantime, there is scope for local authorities, the Highways Agency and other partners—such as the police—to introduce short-term measures to minimise accidents until the long-term answer can be delivered. These new arrangements for local transport plans offer the flexibility to tackle problems with imagination and to develop alternative solutions.
We run highly successful advertising campaigns and road safety initiatives such as the drink drive campaign, the campaign to persuade everyone to wear seat belts in the back of the car as well as in the front, and the campaign to rehabilitate drink drivers and to get reoffending rates down. All those national initiatives will help road safety generally, not excluding on the A63 at Melton, but I recognise that the accident record there is a cause for special concern, as the right hon. Gentleman highlighted in his speech.
For the three years prior to 1997, the accident record near the traffic-signal-controlled junction at Melton increased from nine personal injury accidents in 1994 to 15 in 1996. There was an encouraging drop in accidents in 1997, after some low-cost improvements had been undertaken—mainly to the road surface—but that trend was reversed in 1998.
Although we do not have full details of the accident record in 1999 to date, I am fully aware of the fatal accident in March that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I know about the two damage-only accidents in the area on 30 April, which would not feature in the statistics usually kept by the Department.
The need for a significant improvement at Melton has long been recognised. A scheme for a two-level junction was introduced into the roads programme in 1987. That scheme has had a chequered history, with significant local debate about its layout and its impact in the intervening period. A preferred route was announced as long ago as September 1991. Progress was then stalled as a result of decisions in 1994 to seek a lower-cost solution. Alternatives at that stage again attracted local opposition. Those were overcome by 1995, and a different preferred solution was published. Further progress was suspended on that scheme following the review of the roads programme in 1995.
On coming to office, the Labour Government had to undertake a full and comprehensive review of the roads programme that we inherited, to assess its affordability and its contribution to the integrated transport policies that we intend to develop. That detailed and comprehensive assessment was undertaken during 1997 and the early part of 1998. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", was published in July 1998 and was immediately followed by our report on our review of the roads programme, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".
I am very pleased that, in that reassessment, we were able to recognise the importance of the scheme at Melton. However, because of the lack of progress with the scheme prior to 1997, it was not sufficiently developed to be available to be included in our targeted programme of improvements for schemes for which we had secured funding. However, recognising its importance, we included it in a very restricted list of only seven exceptionally important schemes in the whole of England. All those schemes must have road-based solutions, and we intend to make progress with them as swiftly as possible. I shall return to timing issues in a moment. Schemes will be progressed through their preparatory stages so that if, after full appraisal and statutory procedure, they are endorsed, they can be taken forward without delay.
On 10 December last year, Lord Whitty announced the timing of the schemes included in our programme. It was announced that the next step for the Melton interchange is the publication of draft orders in 2000-01. Those orders will cover matters such as the positions of slip roads, alterations to side roads and, possibly, the compulsory acquisition of land. People will have the right to comment or object, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a public inquiry may be necessary.
I have already said that we will take the scheme forward as quickly as possible, subject to the views of the regional planning conference at the appropriate time. I hope that it will be possible to complete the project, assuming that it receives the necessary approvals, well before the 2006 date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Were a public inquiry to be necessary following public objections, that would impact on the time scale, so he will understand why I cannot give a more precise indication. However, I can assure him that we intend to proceed urgently with the project, even though we cannot deliver it immediately, for the reasons that I have outlined.
In the meantime, we shall not ignore the serious problems at the site. The Highways Agency and the police will continue to work to identify small-scale measures that can be introduced quickly to improve safety at the junction. I have already mentioned that work undertaken in 1997 had an immediate effect on the safety record, albeit only for a short time. That work improved the skid resistance of the approaches to the junction, and other measures were introduced to raise driver awareness. It is extremely disappointing that the effectiveness of those measures seems to have been so short-lived.
The Highways Agency has taken immediate steps to address the deterioration since then and the consequences of the recent fatal accident in March, which highlighted the continuing problem. The agency has increased the length of time at which all signals at the junction show a red light, giving more time for traffic to clear the junction before other streams of traffic receive a green light. This measure could increase the length of queues at the junction, but, in similar situations elsewhere, it has improved safety and reduced the type of accidents that occur at Melton.
The right hon. Gentleman commented that traffic accidents were not related to climatic conditions. That is also my understanding, which is why the wider measures are necessary. He highlighted the problem of speed. I am pleased to confirm that we agree with him that a 50 mph speed limit would improve the situation on the main road


approaches to the junction. The Highways Agency will take the necessary steps to introduce this measure. The local police have already undertaken to enforce the limit through the use of speed cameras. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that could make a significant difference in the short term, although it is accepted that a longer-term solution is necessary.

Mr. Davis: I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for those two announcements. I know that, for reasons that he touched on, he cannot be as explicit as I would like on the timetable for the longer-term measures. However, his announcements today may well save my constituents' lives, and for that I express my gratitude to him and his Department.

Mr. Raynsford: I am extremely grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments. We are all deeply concerned about the situation at the junction. The Deputy Prime Minister made his concerns known yesterday evening, and we are determined to do all that we can in the short term. The measure that we propose could make a real difference.
Moreover, some small extensions of the right-turning lanes in the central reserve will be provided to give additional room for waiting traffic, as problems can be caused if traffic backs up while waiting to turn right off the main road. Further signing measures will be introduced to emphasise the presence of the signal-controlled junction and the likelihood of stationary traffic, to give advance warning to approaching vehicles.
The Highways Agency will continue to review the traffic conditions at the junction with the police and the local authority, and will introduce further measures if those will be of benefit in the period pending the provision of the grade-separated junction.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of cutting through red tape and knocking heads together. He paid a great tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that he could not think of anyone in Government more capable of doing that. I am happy to confirm that my right hon. Friend proposes to meet the right hon. Gentleman and other interested parties to consider the various issues on site at Melton as soon as that can be arranged.
In summary, we acknowledge the safety concerns there and recognise the importance of taking forward a scheme to provide the long-term solution as swiftly as possible. In the meantime, we will do all that we can to improve the safety record at the site and to prevent a repetition of the tragic accidents that have occurred in recent years, which occasioned the right hon. Gentleman's speech and this debate.

Body Piercing

Dr. David Clark: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise in the House the subject of body piercing. Many of us recognise that body piercing is a fashion and perhaps makes a generational point. There may be those who consider it a trivial matter, but I hope to make it clear that the repercussions of body piercing can be serious.
My attention was first drawn to the matter by my local newspaper, the South Shields Gazette, which is proud to be the oldest provincial daily newspaper in the country. It celebrates its 150th year of publication this year. It is a campaigning newspaper, and body piercing has been the subject of one of its campaigns.
My original concern related to the body piercing of minors. I was aware that under the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 it was illegal to tattoo young people, but that apparently does not apply to body piercing. The matter was drawn to my attention by the case of a constituent whose daughter, aged 13, had returned home with her nipples pierced. To put it mildly, my constituent was not pleased when he found out.
I started to pursue the matter and found that apart, perhaps, from recourse to the common law and to assault, there was probably little that could be done in that case. I originally thought that the problem of body piercing could be overcome by extending the provisions of the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969, but that would not solve the problem. The matter is not so simple. One immediately thinks of the practice of ear piercing, which has gone on for centuries in this country. It would be draconian for legislation to ban ear piercing for people under 18.
I generally take the view that the fewer restrictions and regulations we impose, the better, so I am not keen to overregulate society. However, there is a case for us to examine the need for the regulation of body piercing. The more I have investigated the problem, the clearer it has become that it does not affect only young people.
What people decide to do with their body is entirely a matter for them, but the House has a responsibility to protect minors. We also have some responsibility to guarantee to our citizens that if they decide to have their bodies pierced, they can do so in safe and hygienic conditions. That is certainly not the case at present.
The Sunday People picked up on a series of parliamentary questions that I tabled on 20 April. It held random tests in various parts of the country, sending young people to body piercing establishments to see whether the practitioners would carry through a body piercing. I am sad to report that body piercing is widely available in Bristol, the west midlands and Merseyside—and on Tyneside as well—to young people aged 13 or 14.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Or younger.

Dr. Clark: Or younger, as the hon. Gentleman says, but in this case the young people were 13 or 14-year-olds.
The general problem is not as acute in London because, under the London Local Authorities Act 1991, the local authorities in London can act in a more stringent manner than local authorities outwith the capital. The Sunday


People discovered that none of the young people it sent out in London—minors who were under 16—were able to have their bodies pierced. Perhaps there is a lesson in that.
Outside London there is a major problem, as certain environmental health officers, medical practitioners and health authorities have recognised. Foremost among those, I must pay tribute to the Bury and Rochdale environmental health departments, which got together and wondered what they could do to address this problem. They also had meetings with the respective health authorities. At the end of last year, they decided to survey the general practitioners in their areas to discover the extent of the problem, and the results are revealing.
Over three weeks, the departments surveyed 209 GPs in the Bury and Rochdale areas and 113 replied, saying that they had had to treat patients as a result of inadequate and unsuccessful body piercing. Treatment varied according to the type of piercing and cases involving the navel were the most difficult to treat. The GPs reported 191 cases involving infection of the navel and, although I suspect that there will have been many more, 167 cases involving ear piercing. There were 57 cases involving nose piercing, 23 involving nipple piercing and 17 involving tongue piercing.
Although I emphasise and admit that only one survey has been carried out, I have no reason to think that the situation in other parts of the country would be substantially different from that pertaining in Rochdale and in Bury. The figures for the two authorities were almost identical; there was some variation, but not much.
We have evidence that a problem exists—not only a problem with minors, but a problem with the way in which body piercing is undertaken. There is a lack of action, and local authorities lack the powers to try to ensure that they can provide some protection to their citizens who decide, quite legitimately and quite understandably, to have their bodies pierced.
To support the need for action, I cite the excellent work of Professor Norman Noah, one of the foremost experts in the world on the issues affecting body piercing. He works in the communicable disease surveillance centre of the Public Health Laboratory Service, which is based at Colindale avenue in London. Over the years, he has done a great deal of work on tattooing and on body piercing. He has drawn up the guidelines for a number of professional tattooing and body piercing organisations and believes that, if those guidelines could be extended and were adhered to, we could probably overcome some of the more routine problems.
I have mentioned the effect of piercing on parts of people's bodies, but it has been put to me that we cannot ignore viral infections such as AIDS—acquired immune deficiency syndrome—which could be spread by body piercing. It does not take a great deal of imagination to realise that a needle could be used, perhaps innocently, on someone who is HIV positive and then on someone else, transmitting the disease.
There are major problems and Professor Noah identifies five. The first is body piercing of minors. Although I am open to listening to other opinions, I take the view that body piercing other than ear piercing—although it should perhaps not be illegal for under-16s—should not be undertaken without parental consent. Other Members of the House may want to pursue that debate at some other

time. It would be tidiest if we transferred the regulations on tattooing across to body piercing, but my instinct is that that would probably be too draconian.
Secondly, Professor Noah raises the valid issue of the use of local anaesthetic by non-medical personnel. Clearly one can imagine that that could cause all sorts of difficulties. The third problem, which was highlighted by the survey in Rochdale and in Bury, is the incidence and the effect of local infections and other complications arising from body piercing.
The fourth problem, which is a more complicated socio-medical issue, is the incidence of side effects of body piercing, such as scar tissue resulting from nipple piercing and the effect that that could have subsequently on breast feeding. Body piercers have said that such piercing has no effect whatever, but I suspect that we do not know sufficient to be so categoric about that.
The final issue is the training of body piercers themselves. There are professional associations—professional may not be the right term, but I concede that point—connected with body piercing. They have all told me that they would welcome guidance and some regulation. They are concerned that there are cowboys out there who are quite prepared to charge £20, £30 or £40 to pierce the body of any person without any regard for the outcome. The training and the qualifications of body piercers must be examined to find a way forward.
I concede that we are perhaps at an early stage of the debate. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions to the Home Office Minister responsible for overall regulation on 20 April and he conceded that the previous Government had been concerned about body piercing and had established a working party, conducted a survey and concluded that there was a need for legislation. I know that this Government take a similar view, but, equally, I know that a great deal of other legislation is vying for time in the House.
We may have to wait some time before we can expect legislation to be discussed on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, so we must take some action. I suggest that the work conducted in Rochdale and in Bury should be extended to other parts of the country to discover whether the problem is as serious as the survey suggested. If the problems are as acute and serious as that, we should consider taking action even outside the realms of formal regulations.
I know that the Department of Health is aware of Professor Noah's research. Could it study his work to find ways of extending, on a voluntary basis to begin with, the code of practice that he devised? That could be done with the agreement of the Department of Health, and after consultation with local authorities and the professional associations of body piercers. It would be a positive way forward while we are waiting for legislation. There is a great willingness to do that. We could also consult the local environmental health authorities on the extent of the problem and on ways of making progress on this matter.
This issue is of concern to Labour Members, and I know that Opposition Members have some sympathy with my arguments. The Minister is aware of the problem, and I know that she and Ministers at the Home Office want to make some progress. I hope that this short debate is only the first step, because if we make some real progress, we can allow our citizens to follow the fashion of body piercing and at the same time guarantee that if young


people—it is mainly young people who have this done—go to a body piercing establishment they can expect the highest standards of hygiene, and that the body piercing will be performed as safely as possible.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on his success in securing the debate, and on the energy that he has expended in recent weeks to raise the profile of concern about the possible risks of body piercing. I am grateful to have the opportunity to set out the Government's position on the regulation of body piercing, which, as my right hon. Friend has rightly explained, spans the Department of Health and the Home Office, as the Home Secretary has important enforcement and legislative responsibilities.
The key issue is the need to address the possible health risks of body piercing, and to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of the measures in place to minimise those risks. We shall examine the points made by my right hon. Friend about the consent for and the safety of the body piercing of children. These issues must be considered against the background of the increasing fashion for body piercing in recent years. We show our age when we say that we can barely understand the appeal of body piercing. Parents are concerned, and I am anxious that body piercing should be performed in a safe and hygienic manner, so that young people, who are most at risk if it goes wrong, get the protection to which they are entitled.
I shall begin by considering the possible health risks and the measures in place to minimise them. If carried out incorrectly and unhygienically, cosmetic body piercing can cause a variety of problems. They are usually local and trivial, and arise from wound infections. However, body piercing can also result in the transmission of serious blood-borne viral infections, such as hepatitis B. There may also be other non-infectious complications directly resulting from the procedure, such as swelling around the piercing and allergic reactions to jewellery metal and antiseptics. It is essential, therefore, that we have the right measures in place to ensure public protection from such risks.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly the legislative framework that is already in place to regulate these businesses, and how that facilitates the promotion of safe and hygienic practice with the express aim of minimising the health risks. Local authorities have powers under specific and general legislation to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. In London, local authorities may regulate these businesses by licensing and inspection, or by registration, byelaws and inspection, depending on which legislation they have adopted. The majority of London local authorities use licensing powers.
Under the licensing provisions, local authorities in London may set conditions under which a licence is granted to body piercing businesses. The freedom to set conditions is an important leverage. The licence conditions may cover matters such as the cleanliness and hygiene of the premises and equipment, and the safety of equipment. Local authorities may refuse to grant, renew

or transfer a licence, or they may revoke a licence, if they are not satisfied that the business will provide a safe and hygienic service.
Local authorities outside London do not have specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. That is because when the legislation governing skin piercing businesses outside London was introduced in 1982, cosmetic body piercing was not included as it was not widely known about or practised. I suspect that some people could hardly believe that such practices took place. However, many, perhaps most, cosmetic body piercing businesses also carry out tattooing or ear piercing, which local authorities outside London have powers to regulate by registration and byelaws. Local authorities will, therefore, have the opportunity to work with businesses offering cosmetic body piercing to promote safe and hygienic practices, which will be to the benefit of all customers, including those who go for body piercing.
In addition, local authorities are able to use general enforcement powers under health and safety at work legislation. That allows them to use improvement and prohibition notices, and ultimately to prosecute cosmetic body piercing businesses, if they judge that there is a risk to customers' health and safety.
Following a consultation exercise under the previous Government in 1996, we concluded that primary legislation should be introduced to give local authorities outside London specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses, when parliamentary time allows—a point made by my right hon. Friend.
We are aware that there is support from local authorities and businesses themselves for legislation to control cosmetic body piercing outside London, and our decision on the consultation results is a clear indication of our continuing commitment to protect the public from potential risks. There is heavy pressure on parliamentary time from a wide range of Government priorities. It is not possible, at this point, to be more precise about when such legislation might be introduced.
However, as I have already explained, that does not mean that we have left cosmetic body piercing businesses outside London completely unregulated. Local authorities outside London are able to inspect, advise and, if necessary, use enforcement powers for cosmetic body piercing businesses through a combination of existing specific legislation and health and safety at work legislation.
The legislative framework enables local authorities to play a key role in ensuring quality and driving up standards. Local authorities can also be effective in promoting good practice by building constructive partnerships with body piercing businesses and organisations.
I am aware that local authorities and body piercing organisations are seeking to promote safe and hygienic practices through good-practice guidelines, training courses and conferences. For example, local authorities in Oxford, Brighton, Norwich, Tameside and south Somerset have produced, or are producing, guidelines for body piercers, or the public, on cosmetic body piercing. Moreover, last September Doncaster metropolitan borough council held a conference on body piercing for local authorities, body piercers and the medical profession.
The European Professional Piercers Association and the Association of Professional Piercers produce guidelines on safe and hygienic body-piercing techniques. Government can also play a role. The Public Health Laboratory Service has issued guidelines on skin piercing, which give detailed advice on matters such as infection control, surface anaesthesia and after-care, and the Medical Devices Agency has issued guidelines on sterilising equipment. All those measures should help to drive up standards, and, most important, to protect the public.
I know that my right hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the body piercing of young children without parental consent, both in regard to whether it is appropriate and because of the possible health risks. As he will know, Government policy on the age of consent is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; but let me explain the position as it relates to skin piercing.
Only the tattooing of minors is controlled by specific legislation—the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969. Currently, there are no plans to introduce legislation to make the body piercing of minors a criminal offence, but, without a valid consent, the piercing of one person's body by another person could be held to be an assault. In English law, the age of majority is 18, but, in the case of most forms of skin piercing other than tattooing, the question of what is a valid consent is governed by common law, which means that whether an offence has been committed depends on the circumstances of each case. The degree of competence that can be exercised by children will depend in each case on the relative maturity of the child concerned, as well as on his or her age. If a person under 18 is capable of understanding the nature of the act that is performed, he or she is capable of giving a valid consent to it unless statute provides otherwise.
Some types of body piercing, however, are not necessarily subject to those provisions. For example, children under 16 may not consent to what would be an indecent assault. Whether an indecent assault had taken place would depend on the facts of the individual case. Neither the Government nor the Crown Prosecution Service know of any prosecutions arising from body-piercing incidents.
As for the issue of the age of consent, I hope that I can give my right hon. Friend some reassurance by telling him that I understand it to be recommended good practice in the industry for body piercing not to be carried out on children without parental consent. The European Professional Piercers Association says that it should not be carried out on anyone under 16 without parental consent, and the Association of Professional Piercers

suggests a minimum age of 18 without such consent. I have also heard of individual businesses taking a similar line on the cosmetic body piercing of children. One body piercing business that responded to the 1996 consultation exercise said that it turned down business amounting to between £120 and £150 each week in refusing to pierce the bodies of children who did not have parental consent.
As far as I can tell, and given the advice that is available, the industry appears generally to treat the piercing of children's bodies in a responsible way, and—as it should—to err on the side of caution. Nevertheless, parents feel concerned when their children have body piercing done without their consent, and they are right to feel concern. I have therefore asked officials to monitor reports of problems arising from the piercing of children, and the extent of public concern. If there is evidence of widespread concern and a widespread failure to adhere to the good practice set out in the recommendations for self-regulation, we will not hesitate to consider the need for further controls.

Dr. Clark: I am grateful for the information that my right hon. Friend has just given, which constitutes a considerable step forward; but would it be possible for her to extend the good work that has already been done—the voluntary work, and the establishment of a code of practice—to ensure that the professional associations have an interchange with local authorities outside London, and best practice can be observed?
My hon. Friend will have noted the evidence from Bury and Rochdale health authority. Could she use her good offices to ensure that other health authorities conduct similar surveys to measure the extent of the problems?

Ms Jowell: I should be happy to implement my right hon. Friend's proposals for the strengthening of public protection through the mechanism of self-regulation. I shall explore the options that he has suggested, as well as investigating the case for further dissemination of Professor Noah's guidelines, which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, provide a standard for good practice.
The Government's primary concern is for cosmetic body piercing to be done in a safe and hygienic manner, so that the public are protected from possible risks to their health. I have described the legislative controls that currently exist and those that are planned, as well as measures taken by local authorities and the industry to protect those who choose to have their bodies pierced. Our strong preference is for good practice to be spread by means of self-regulation, and we intend to work with the industry to secure that objective. Let me also signal our intention to take further steps if there is evidence of abuse or negligence that puts the health of the public at risk.

Kidderminster Hospital

Mr. Christopher Gill: Opening the rural health forum conference on 26 October last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that the Government had looked at the special needs of each area, including the particular features of rural areas, and that the major factor in addition to low density of population and correspondingly fewer services was the distance to travel. There is now less public transport in rural areas, and there has been a tendency for care and treatment delivered by both health and social services departments to be concentrated on particular centres. That has made the position much worse. Moreover, those who are least likely to have their own transport are likely to be those with the greatest health needs: the less well off, the elderly, women and children.
That makes the case for retaining the full range of services at Kidderminster very eloquently. The Secretary of State's words could scarcely be improved on: they reflect the sentiments of my constituents, and people living in other parts of the country—particularly those in Worcestershire—who are served by this fine hospital.
In the same opening address to the conference, the Secretary of State pointed out some of the effects of the changes and developments in the national health service and in medicine generally:
There are still major pressures for concentration of services and the needs of local communities must be represented to the Royal Colleges involved in these proposals. Short-term considerations now should not leave us with having to rebuild small hospitals in a few years time when the new technology takes effect.
Again, he got it absolutely right, but unfortunately his words have not been translated into deeds.
Members do not have to take my word for that. I draw the House's attention to the headlines that appeared in the Shropshire Star last Friday:
Poll backing for NHS fight.
Hospital campaigners get vote of confidence with elections triumph.
People living in the area that is served by Kidderminster district general hospital are so incensed about what the Government are doing with the hospital that 15 people stood for election at last Thursday's district council elections on a "Save Kidderminster hospital" ticket. Of those 15, 11 were elected, six of them knocking out Labour councillors on Wyre Forest district council.
What is interesting is that, after those results were announced, the Secretary of State was interviewed on television. I did not see him myself, but I am reliably informed that he said that the council elections would make no difference. What arrogance to say that the expression through the ballot box of an enormous number of people's concern for the future of the hospital that serves their area will make no difference, notwithstanding the fact that six Labour councillors were voted out in Wyre Forest district. One can perhaps look forward to the next general election. It looks likely that the strength of feeling on the issue will mean that there will be a change of Member of Parliament as well.
I see the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) in the Chamber. I gave him notice of the debate, so that, if I say anything about him, he will not be unprepared.

I remind him of what he was telling the electorate of Wyre Forest before the general election. He was saying that it was a question simply of money and that the future of Kidderminster district general hospital could be assured if money were forthcoming.

Mr. David Lock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that, when I wanted to intervene on him on the question of Kidderminster district general hospital in a similar debate in June, he would not give way, so I will not give way to him. If he wants to intervene on the Minister, I am sure that the Minister will be more understanding.
Under the Conservative Government, in the 10 years from 1987 to 1997, £25 million of capital was spent on Kidderminster district general hospital: £20 million on a building programme; £5 million on equipment. Those of my colleagues who know the area—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) in the Chamber—will know that Kidderminster is a fine hospital. It enjoys a fine reputation. It is successful on every count. It is popular. It has conducted its affairs within its budget. In 1997, it attracted a charter mark for excellence, yet the Government want to downgrade it and to remove its accident and emergency facilities.
I remind the Minister that hospital admissions via the accident and emergency department at Kidderminster have increased every year for the past five years. If he looks at the statistics relating to 1998, he will find that the number of admissions via Kidderminster's A and E department increased in each quarter of that year.
I was speaking about money. I was explaining that the Conservative Government had spent an enormous amount on Kidderminster district general hospital. In a speech in the House on 15 March, the Secretary of State was bragging at column 708 about the fact that, under the new Labour Government, £1 million had been spent on the accident and emergency department at Portsmouth. He clearly thinks that £1 million is a lot of money. By anyone's standards, it is, but the point is that the Conservative Government spent £25 million on Kidderminster hospital and now the Labour Government are prepared to see it downgraded, the accident and emergency department closed and many of the services removed to Worcester.
I remind the House of what else the new Labour Government have said in terms of finance. On 16 February, the Prime Minister announced that £30 million from the NHS modernisation fund would be spent on improving England's accident and emergency services. Not to be outdone, the following month the Secretary of State for Health announced an additional £100 million, again to modernise A and E departments. What is going on? How can it possibly be right that the Government are prepared to close a modern A and E department, on which £25 million has recently been spent, at the same time as they boast about modernising 50 A and E departments in other hospitals in other parts of the country?
While I am talking about the hypocrisy of what the Government are proposing, let me remind the House that, today, in the Worcester and Kidderminster hospitals


combined, there are more than 800 beds. In three years' time, when the Government's plan is fully implemented, there will be fewer than 600 beds; but the House does not need me to remind it that, for the whole of the current Administration and indeed in the run-up to the last general election, the Labour party was saying that the health service would be improved, and that there would be better facilities and better services for all our constituents.
I am sorry, but the Government would have a job to sell that idea now in south Shropshire and Wyre Forest. We have a saying in the country: "If you want to meet a fool in the country, you have to take him with you." The people will not be fooled by all the words of the Secretary of State and Government generally when they see for themselves that the hospital that they love, the hospital that has served their area so well for so long—incidentally, the hospital to which so many of my constituents have contributed through their generosity to the league of friends, which has provided so much additional equipment—is being downgraded, with many of its services transferred to other hospitals. How can they possibly believe all the words and fine sentiments that the Government keep propounding?

Miss Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point: what is wrong with the people of Worcestershire; why have the Government broken their promises to them? When discussing the electoral consequences of those broken promises, will he bear in mind the fantastic results that we achieved in the local elections in Bromsgrove, which were the result partly of the closure of Kidderminster hospital, which serves a third of my constituency, and partly of the closure of the accident and emergency department at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, which is also to be downgraded to a local emergency centre? The people of Worcestershire, and of Bromsgrove in particular, are most concerned about that.

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for her constituents and has been a staunch ally in the fight to preserve Kidderminster hospital. That must be an object lesson to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who should have fought harder for his constituents; his party might then have done much better in the local elections.

Mr. Lock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: No. The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say on the subject. Had he been generous in giving way to me in earlier debates, of course I would have given way, because I like debate; I like to be able to answer his arguments, but he has had time enough in previous debates.
The pressure to keep Kidderminster hospital going on the present basis comes not only from me and my constituents or my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and her constituents but from right inside the constituency of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. The Kidderminster and district community health council continues to be totally opposed to the plans, but it is getting nowhere with the Government, who appear impervious to local opinion.
It might interest the Minister to know that a formidable action group fighting for the retention of Kidderminster district general hospital is to go to the High Court at the

end of this month to seek permission for judicial review. That is how strongly my constituents and others feel about the issue. One does not seek judicial review lightly. That is the action of an enormous number of people in desperation at the Government's insouciance in the face of their representations.
I invite the Minister to comment on the fact that, whereas Worcestershire health authority says that the downgrading of Kidderminster hospital will save £4 million a year, the finance director of Kidderminster hospital trust, who should know something about it because he is employed at the hospital, says that the savings will be at best only £300,000 a year.
Which of the figures is correct? My constituents want to know, because one of the figures must, obviously, be wrong. Major decisions are being made on the strength of the figures provided, and it behoves the Minister to tell the House exactly what figures are being used in the considerations.
Worcestershire health authority has a preponderance of representatives from the south and east of Worcestershire, who have clearly voted against the minority of representatives from the north-west of the county, where the Kidderminster hospital is. My constituents feel very sore about the fact that the future of our area is being decided by people from an entirely different part of the country, who have a vested interest in the new hospital that is proposed for Worcester.
We have seen the arrogance of a Secretary of State who is totally dismissive of public opinion and the hypocrisy of the new Labour Government, who say one thing and do something entirely different. He says that he has considered the special needs of every area; that he recognises the problems of low population density; and that the distance to travel is an important factor—but he does absolutely nothing about it. My constituents look to the Government to review the decision and allow the district general hospital at Kidderminster to continue with a full range of services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on securing time to debate a subject that I know is important both to him and some of his constituents and to the people of Kidderminster and all who value the services provided by Kidderminster district general hospital. It is customary on these occasions to congratulate both Opposition and Government Members on their thoughtful and positive remarks; sadly, on this occasion I will not be able to do that.
I would like to state clearly from the outset that the Government see a very clear and positive future for Kidderminster hospital in the context of our decision on Worcestershire health authority's strategic review of services. That view has been echoed by the health authority.
In the months since the ministerial decision last December, we have made strenuous efforts, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), to explain that the solution that we have arrived at for Kidderminster is not a closure but a positive change reflecting the needs of a modern health service. I am sad to say that both the hon. Members who have


spoken in this debate have given the false impression that we are closing the hospital. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) made that allegation, which is untrue. Such misleading statements do nothing whatever—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would like to think that we could continue this debate without sedentary interventions from any part of the House.

Mr. Hutton: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Both hon. Members have misled their constituents about the Government's intentions. We have no plans whatever to close Kidderminster hospital.

Mr. Lock: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, in stark contrast to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I welcome the cast iron, on the record assurance that Kidderminster hospital will not close. May I also have an assurance that 24-hour emergency services, led by a consultant, will remain at Kidderminster, and that the driving force behind the changes, as recognised by the "Save Kidderminster Hospital" campaign's own experts, is strictly medical, and not party political? Will my hon. Friend come to Kidderminster to repeat those assurances and to discuss issues surrounding the implementation of these difficult decisions?

Mr. Hutton: I can give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks, and I will be happy to go to Kidderminster to explain the situation to his constituents.
The change is not a ruling from on high, but is based on expert clinical advice, sound financial judgment and a spirit of compromise and listening to local views. Let me explain briefly the background to the strategic review in Worcestershire and what it set out to achieve. The Government's White Paper on the future of the national health service emphasised the need for health services to be able to respond effectively to change. The NHS is moving towards modernisation of services provided by hospitals that may serve relatively small local populations.
Current and future medical developments require a complex, modern and comprehensive model of health care. The health service is responding to demands from doctors and other health professionals for the skills and experience that come from greater specialisation. This approach, known as centres of excellence, is aimed at providing patients with the very best that medical science and technology can offer, delivered in well-equipped hospitals with appropriate staffing levels. That was very much the backdrop for Worcestershire's strategic review—the need to secure clinical services that are safe for patients, of high quality, and sustainable in the long term.
Some have suggested, wrongly, that the review was driven by the need for financial cuts in the face of increasing deficits. It is the responsibility of every public organisation to balance its books, and Worcestershire health authority is no exception. On its formation in April 1996, under the previous Administration, the health

authority inherited from North Worcestershire health authority an accumulated deficit of £3.8 million. The health authority has worked hard to contain that position, but overspends by GP fundholders and local costs pressures, especially at Kidderminster health care trust, have worsened the situation. The duplication of services at each 'of the acute trusts in Worcester has made the delivery of efficiency savings a difficult task in the county, and one certainly cannot sustain a pattern of services that will bankrupt a health authority. However, money was merely one factor in the decision, not a driver.
In reaching the decision, our primary consideration has always been the need to ensure access to clinically safe and viable services for the whole county of Worcestershire and its catchment area beyond the county, including the 12,000 south Shropshire people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ludlow, who are currently served by Kidderminster general hospital. I am conscious of his concerns about increased travel times and I will, therefore, ask Worcestershire health authority to investigate the possibility of providing regular services to take visitors from Kidderminster to the Worcester royal infirmary during visiting hours.
The decision on Worcestershire was based on a very complex process of option evaluation and consultation. Locally, the health authority has been discussing the future of its health services with stakeholders since 1995. That culminated in early 1998 in the consultation document "Investing In Excellence", which evaluated seven options for change. During the extended consultation exercise, the health authority held 13 public meetings and received more than 1,500 written responses. Those were carefully evaluated by the health authority, and, following the formal objection of the local community health council, were fully and properly reviewed by Ministers.
In arriving at our decision, Ministers took the advice of clinical professionals, both nationally and locally, and we took seriously the issue of local access to services, which I know is very important in rural areas such as north Worcestershire. In short, everything was done to consult properly and fully with the public and local health professionals. We were satisfied that it was not possible to sustain three centres for emergency medicine and surgery in Worcestershire and that the accident and emergency service should be countywide. Some saw that, erroneously, as the end of all A and E services at Kidderminster. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even now, the health authority is actively involving the local community in implementing the decision. Through the newly formed primary care groups, it has established local reference groups—including users and carers, patient groups and local authorities—to act as a proper sounding board as implementation proceeds. The fact is that, after three years of uncertainty, the service in Worcestershire can now move forward, with a critical, continuing and important role for Kidderminster.
So that we can be clear, let me remind the hon. Member for Ludlow of exactly what was decided by the Government last December. Kidderminster will continue to have a consultant-led emergency service. Major trauma cases will no longer go to Kidderminster and the emphasis there will be on care provided by nurses, backed up by an effective telemedicine link to the countywide A and E service. However, the designated consultant, the post that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did so much


to secure, will be responsible for training and clinical standards at the new emergency centre at Kidderminster, and will spend a substantial proportion of his or her time at the hospital.
Our current best estimate is that nearly half the patients who currently use Kidderminster's A and E department will continue to use Kidderminster's emergency centre, but that figure does not take into account the expected advances in telemedicine before the changes at Kidderminster are implemented. Furthermore, all out-patient appointments will continue to be provided at Kidderminster hospital. That represents a much improved out-patient service because specialties currently only available at Worcester royal infirmary will now be available in Kidderminster.
We expect Kidderminster hospital to be a leading light nationally in the development of telemedicine. We have doubled investment in equipment to reflect that desire, enabling local clinicians working at the hospital to treat as many patients there as possible. Further announcements about additional investment will be made in the near future.
There are already some exciting local models of closer working between acute hospitals and primary care, for example, in east Worcestershire and south Shropshire, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Ludlow. With the continuing development of primary care groups, I expect the number of those initiatives to increase. I hope that the extra 35 GP-designated beds at Kidderminster hospital—another improvement that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did much to secure—will be taken up by local GPs.
We also expect around 70 per cent. of elective cases to continue to be treated at Kidderminster hospital, along with most out-patient services. Furthermore, we expect Kidderminster to keep its one-stop clinics, specialist follow-up clinics, diagnostic testing and out-patient based treatments. Its rehabilitation facilities and cancer resource centre will continue to be developed and improved over the next few years. Indeed, the rehabilitation facilities will be used by patients returning from major surgery in Worcester. In all those areas, services will continue to be provided at Kidderminster hospital.
I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. As a direct result of his strong and effective representations, the health authority's plans for Kidderminster hospital were amended to ensure the provision of safe local services, including, for example, a consultant-led emergency centre at the hospital; the doubling of the amount being spent on refurbishing and improving the hospital, including an extra £750,000 which the hon. Member for Ludlow conveniently forgot to mention; and making provision for 35 GP-designated beds at the hospital. Unlike the hon. Member for Ludlow, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest has done an excellent job on behalf of local people.
That is the framework that we have laid down for the health authority. Although the changes will by no means be introduced overnight, it has already begun work on the detailed implementation. Since the announcement on

Worcestershire, the Government have signed up to the brand new £116 million private finance initiative hospital at Worcester, which was promised by the previous Administration but not delivered. If the hon. Member for Ludlow believes that his party's record of expenditure on the NHS was so magnificent, he might wish to offer an explanation of why the Conservatives suffered their worst ever election defeat in 1997. The truth is that people do not trust the Conservatives on the NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began the commissioning work for the new hospital on 19 March. The new facilities at Worcester have been planned to take account of the changes at Kidderminster hospital. There will be sufficient capacity in 2002, when the hospital is opened, to accommodate the anticipated number of emergency and elective patients. The new hospital will enable services to be configured in a way that is clinically and financially acceptable. In the interim, there will be moves towards implementation of some of the service changes agreed on—for example, the development of the ambulatory care centre in Kidderminster.
As part of the consultation, the issue of trust reconfiguration was raised and those consultations are proceeding. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that Ministers will be vigilant in ensuring that the health authority is mindful of its responsibilities to consider the implications of its proposals for out-of-county patients and will work with neighbouring health authorities, including Shropshire, to ensure continuity and equity of access to services.
There are often strong feelings expressed when local institutions of any sort need to undergo change. I understand those concerns, but we have to make a balanced and soundly based clinical judgment about how best we can provide a safe and sustainable local health service in the long term. The Government believe strongly that we have made the right decisions about the future of Kidderminster hospital, on behalf of the population that it serves.
I hope now that we can begin to look forward to the opportunities to develop the service at Kidderminster and to discussing the changes in a realistic and sensible manner. Sadly, the hon. Member for Ludlow has not contributed today to that serious debate.

Miss Kirkbride: Shame!

Mr. Hutton: It is interesting that the Opposition like to dish it out, but they cannot take it back. That says something about the modern Conservative party.
The health authority has a difficult task ahead of it, but a task to which it is fully committed within the boundaries the Government has laid down. Kidderminster hospital has a secure future and it can be a pioneer for modern health services. That is particularly true of telemedicine. The decisions that we have taken are the right ones for the future development of the NHS in Worcestershire.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Banana Regime

Mr. Robert Walter: What assessment she has made of the likely impact on Caribbean economies of United States demands for changes to the EU banana regime. [82947]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): May I explain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is at the annual meeting of the Caribbean development bank, so I am here on my own today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."J I hope that I can manage.
The World Trade Organisation arbitration panel has concluded that the European Union's new banana regime is not compatible with World Trade Organisation rules. Its report made some suggestions as to how the Caribbean banana trade can be supported within the rules. We are undertaking detailed work on the best possible banana regime for the Caribbean that is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.

Mr. Walter: One third of the Windward islands work force—about 70,000 people—is involved in the banana trade, and the United States enjoys a very favourable trade balance in other food products with similar economies. Will the Secretary of State say what discussions she has had with her counterparts in Washington about how the United States plans to aid such economies if their trade negotiators are successful?

Clare Short: I have not discussed these matters with representatives of the United States Government, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has. The President of the United States has said that his Government would be anxious to provide some help to the Caribbean. This morning, I met high commissioners and ambassadors from the Caribbean.
What we have to do, despite the bruised feelings, is find a good regime that is World Trade Organisation compatible, so that we can drive on with assisting the Caribbean and especially the Windward islands which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are highly dependent. They need reform to be more effective, and people's livelihoods will be at risk if we do not succeed in finding a suitable regime. What would be dangerous to us all would be a rise in drug smuggling in the Caribbean.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many Labour Members believe that the United States has behaved disgracefully over the legitimate concern raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). The head of the Chiquita Banana Company has made huge contributions to President Clinton and others. Do not the Americans, in their attitude to the interests of the people of the Windward islands, come out of this very badly?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes his own point. The World Trade Organisation is a rules-based organisation to

which we have all signed up. Caribbean member states have decided to join it for their own benefit. The United States, for whatever reason, has invoked the rules and, disappointingly, the arbitration panel has said that the new EU regime has to be modified. So, despite all the bruised feelings, we have to find a way forward that is compatible with the World Trade Organisation. That is what we are working on now.

Pakistan

Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment she has made of the effect of British development assistance on the promotion of good governance in Pakistan. [82948]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): As the White Paper on international development makes clear, equitable and effective government is essential to the economic and social policies that are crucial for the reduction of poverty. We are currently reviewing the strategy that underpins our work in Pakistan. Governance must be improved—and corruption reduced—to achieve economic and social development and the reduction of poverty in Pakistan.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for that answer, but will the right hon. Lady bear in mind, as she reviews the policy towards Pakistan, the fact that Pakistan is involved, as reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, in procuring missile technology from North Korea? Not only that, but Pakistan is also believed to be passing nuclear technology to North Korea, and to be involved in the state sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir. Moreover, as the right hon. Lady has mentioned, Pakistan has perhaps the most corrupt Government and administration in the world. For years, Britain has devoted substantial assistance to Pakistan, but it appears to have had no effect on the behaviour of its Government or on the quality of its administration. Will she therefore consider how our development assistance programme should be taken forward in the future?

Clare Short: We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about nuclear development in both India and Pakistan, which is a danger both to that region and to the whole world. It is also a tragedy that the two countries have both high defence spending and high levels of poverty. The hon. Gentleman would agree that although we must take action, it should not be the poor of Pakistan who pay the price. It was not they who were responsible for the decision to go nuclear. In all humility, I should add that the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported worked for nearly 20 years on Pakistan without having much effect on corruption. I am reviewing our policy, and I hope to do better.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Has my right hon. Friend made it clear to the Government of Pakistan and their neighbours that the generous British public will find it hard to understand why substantial aid should go to Pakistan when it can seemingly find all the money that it needs to develop nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery?

Clare Short: I have made it absolutely clear to the Governments of both India and Pakistan that everything that we do will be reviewed in the light of the


nuclear tests. None the less, it would be wrong to hurt the poor of those countries because the elites decided to engage in a nuclear programme. We have reviewed and scrutinised all that we do to make sure that the poor are protected but that there is no benefit to those responsible for the nuclear decisions.

Mr. David Heath: The human and political rights of women are a key element of good governance. Given the stress placed on those rights in some neighbouring states in the region, will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to ensuring that Pakistan adheres to best practice on human rights for women?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some 70 per cent. of the poor of the world are women, and the poorest children in the world tend to come from households headed by women. Without empowering women and educating girls, we will never make progress on poverty. The position in Pakistan is particularly worrying, and we are doing all in our power to improve matters for women there and to prevent the deterioration that could result from some proposals currently on the table.

Funds Disbursement

Mr. Ben Chapman: What assessment she has made of the roles of (a) advisers and (b) deliverers in the disbursement of development assistance funds. [82949]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In its latest review of the United Kingdom development programme in November 1997, the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development praised the UK for its
strong multidisciplinary skills and innovative aid management approaches".
It added that those make us
one of the most professional and innovative aid agencies in either bilateral or multilateral sectors".
I have said before that I am very proud of my staff, but that is praise indeed. Our running costs are modest—currently about 2.5 per cent. of total programme expenditure—but we have committed ourselves publicly to reducing them further.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that value for money and the reduction of overheads are important, particularly in the international development business? Notwithstanding the record of the Department for International Development, does she agree that there is room for improvement in other organisations, both multilateral and non-governmental? What will she do to encourage use of DFID' s best practice measures among those organisations to strengthen the international development delivery system?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend in two ways. First, since aid began, there has been an obsession with input measures, such as how much is being spent, with absolutely no measurement of output and effectiveness. We are trying to have the international system turned

around so that it is driven by output—by international poverty eradication targets, statistics that show progress in one country as opposed to another and effectiveness.
Secondly, the international system is full of agencies—the World bank, United Nations agencies, bilateral donors and regional development banks—and we need much more collaboration to prevent agencies from tripping over each other as they duplicate each other's work. Much more effectiveness could be achieved in the international system by rationalising provision, and we are working on it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Following endorsements of the highly effective United Kingdom aid programme, is it not the case that we need neither the advice of the Commission of the European Union nor its intervention to secure the best value for British taxpayers' money from the development of the poorest countries of the world? Will the right hon. Lady redress the imbalance that exists to ensure that our funds are better spent to alleviate poverty?

Clare Short: As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, the Government whom he sometimes supported committed a third of the development budget to be spent through the European Commission. Much of that spending and its management is very ineffective. The needs of the poorest are not prioritised. I am desperately trying to remedy the faults of that Government. We are working hard at it and have a published programme for improvement. The Select Committee on International Development, chaired by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), has made an important contribution. The criticism is right, but, because the money is already committed, the answer is to make the institution effective, or the money will be wasted.

Sustainable Development

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If she will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development. [82950]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, attended the Commission on Sustainable Development in New York last month. The meeting discussed oceans and seas, tourism, sustainable consumption and production, and preparations for the United Nations General Assembly special session on small island developing states. The United Kingdom emphasised the need to drive forward environmental and developmental issues together and was re-elected to the commission.

Mr. Savidge: As one of the major themes of the meeting was tourism, can the Secretary of State inform the House about the discussions on it and say how it can both benefit communities and contribute to environmentally friendly sustainable development?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Tourism is one of the biggest industries in the world and is growing faster than most other sectors. It is concentrated in some of the poorest countries, but tends to be organised in a way that brings investment from


outside and that means that food and produce are sourced from outside. Few local people are employed and the environment is often damaged. We are now attending to those questions to get tourism to source locally, to train local people and to be more environmentally sensitive. That can bring big benefits to poor countries.

Mr. John Bercow: As a senior member of a new Labour Government, will the Secretary of State confirm her belief that sustainable development must be set in the context of a free market economy?

Clare Short: Labour has always believed in a mixed economy. The communist bloc demonstrated that a completely statist economy was a disastrous model. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported demonstrated the error of believing only in markets, minimising the state and allowing inequality to flourish. We believe in a mixed economy that uses the strength of the state to provide for all and regulate properly, and the creativity of the market to produce economic benefit for all. That is the right way forward. We are trying to correct the mistakes of the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Kosovo

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment her Department has made of the aid which will be required (a) for Serbia following the cessation of military action and (b) for Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. [82951]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with the European Commission, member states, the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and regional banks to determine the development needs of the region after the conflict. It is too soon to assess the situation of Serbia and our likely involvement with that country. We continue to support the economic reform efforts in Romania and Bulgaria and take account of the effects of the Kosovo crisis. Hungary has not been significantly affected by the conflict.

Mr. Dalyell: Who is going to pay for cleaning up and clearing up the Danube?

Clare Short: The organisations that I listed. This morning, I met the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, who said that this was a war about decent human standards. It is a tragedy, of course, but it gives the region a real chance to go forward without ethnic hatred and on the basis of decent human standards. We must ensure that good comes out of bad and that those values prevail after the conflict is over.

Mr. Bowen Wells: The Secretary of State relies on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide the bulk of the organisation, management and co-ordination of efforts in Macedonia and Albania to assist refugees, as she presumably will in Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary. When will she personally take on the UNHCR to make it an effective body, instead of leaving the refugees to the tender mercies of the winter weather and the likelihood of cholera and other diseases spreading in the camps, and to make the camps suitable for reasonable human existence?

Clare Short: It was not me who decided to rely on the UNHCR to be the lead agency dealing with the refugees;

it was a matter for our international system. That is how the duties were allocated by the UN. We must all work through the UNHCR. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been much criticism, but it is best to hold back such criticism until later on, and to do all that is in our power to make the arrangements more efficient. That is why we engaged NATO to build camps at an early stage and why non-governmental organisations have been helping the UNHCR to improve the running of the camps. Plans will also have to be made for the return of the refugees to Kosovo and we are trying to ensure that we strengthen the UNHCR' s capacity to carry out that job. I understand the frustration behind the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not useful to criticise the UNHCR at present. We must make up for the deficiencies and do a good job on behalf of the refugees.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I understand that a plethora of European and world agencies are considering the future and how we should tackle it. Presumably, however, there will be a holding committee that will act as a decision maker. Will my right hon. Friend advise us whether that will be the case? Will such a committee include Albania and Macedonia in its considerations?

Clare Short: It would be impossible to handle the refugee crisis or to plan for the future without making Albania or Macedonia a key part of the process. There are 400,000 refugees in Albania and about 200,000 in Macedonia. At the meeting that took place at the margins of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund spring meetings, the international community agreed that the EU—assisted by the bank and the fund, which bring to bear a great deal of analytical capacity—will prepare for the economic reconstruction of the region. The refugee effort must be led by the UNHCR, supported by the rest of us. NATO has to plan militarily for the return of the refugees and we must all get behind a UN effort for the immediate return of refugees and for the protection of those who have been displaced internally. We must then bring in the bank and the fund in relation to the reconstruction of Kosovo. That work is going on.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that, at this time, it is necessary to protect the budget of her Department, so that she can fulfil the aims of the White Paper and help the very poorest people of the world? Will she therefore confirm that any further financial aid to the Balkans in the short, medium or long term will come from Treasury contingency reserves and not the budgets of the Department for International Development?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady's point is well made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aha."] Well, it would be profoundly wrong for the poorest people in the world to pay for the refugees of Kosovo. I agree with the hon. Lady on that point. As she is aware, the first £10 million that we found was money that we had allocated to the region and to humanitarian catastrophes; the second £10 million came from the contingency reserves; and the further £20 million, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, came from the Treasury's contingency reserves—not my contingency reserves. Furthermore,


I shall be meeting my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary this afternoon; I might draw the hon. Lady's words to his attention.

Mr. Gary Streeter: As the Secretary of State well knows, in four months' time the severe Serbian winter will fall. Vulnerable people living in tents will die. Will she assure the House that plans are already in place to provide adequate shelter to get the Kosovar Albanians through the winter?

Clare Short: That is a strange point. As I said, I saw the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria this morning; she told me that the Bulgarians have a great deal of contact with people in Serbia, who know that it is inevitable that NATO will win—the question is how fast. Yet the hon. Gentleman says, "will die." We hope that we shall be returning refugees to Kosovo; that is likely to happen by winter time. Of course contingency plans are being made.

Mr. Streeter: I cannot say that I am wholly reassured by that reply. Of course, we want to win the conflict and of course we want the Kosovar Albanians to go home. However, the Secretary of State will understand that time is running out and that, whether the refugees are in Macedonia and Albania or return to their former homes in Kosovo, adequate shelter will be required. Will she assure the House that, although we were caught napping when air strikes began, we shall not be caught napping again and that adequate plans will be put in place and implemented?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Front Bench claim to support the action but constantly try to undermine it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."1 I am sorry, but that is my view: I am shocked by the behaviour of the British Conservative party. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that plans for the winter are being made.

War Children

6. Dr. Doug Naysmith: What measures her Department is taking to protect children's rights in areas affected by war. [82952]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, key United Nations agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross to protect the rights of children affected by armed conflict. The important task now is to get beyond general declarations of good intent and to take practical measures better to protect children affected by war, especially child soldiers and abducted children.

Dr. Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that international pressure should be brought to bear on Governments who employ child soldiers; and that that pressure may usefully come from other Governments, NGOs and Churches?

Clare Short: I agree very much. However, in the list of countries that have child soldiers, which includes Angola, Afghanistan and Sudan, we see some of the most

intractable conflicts in the world, so we have to get more specific and unite in putting pressure on individual Governments. I invite my hon. Friend and the House to put pressure on the Government of Sudan over their disgraceful support for the Lord's Resistance Army, which captures and abducts children from northern Uganda: the girls are abused sexually and the boys are forced to kill members of their own families. The Government of Sudan should be denounced by every decent person in the world—they must stop supporting the Lord's Resistance Army and return every one of those children to their families.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I do not know whether, in her busy day, the Secretary of State has had time to look at the UNHCR website, where it was reported this morning that children were arriving in Albania with gunshot wounds. There is increasing concern about the Albanian families—about 500,000 of them—who remain in Kosovo, but have been displaced from their homes and are desperate for supplies. In the United States, Julia Taft has announced that from about 27 May, the US is to start air drops, having overcome the Pentagon's objections. However, Bill Frelick of the US Committee for Refugees has said that
Air drops indicate the level of desperation we're in".
He believes that the only reliable way of getting food where it is needed is through the use of ground troops. Does the Secretary of State agree with him?

Clare Short: I had not heard about children with gunshot wounds, but I shall make inquiries. We are extremely worried about displaced families in Kosovo, and we and others have been doing all in our power to get information about their condition: for example, we monitor carefully the state of refugees coming across the border, because that tells us something about levels of nutrition and so on. We have considered the use of air drops from the beginning, but they can be disastrous: for example, when they were tried in northern Iraq we learned that they sometimes kill people, feed aggressor forces or cause people to come out of hiding with the result that they are shot and killed. We do not judge that air drops should be used now, but we are monitoring the situation carefully. Refugees coming over the border are still in relatively good shape, but we are worried and we are watching very closely indeed. The real answer is to defeat Serb aggression, get the refugees home and get humanitarian help into Kosovo.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Mr. Andrew George: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for refugees and asylum seekers. [82954]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are now some 22 million refugees in the world, which is the greatest number ever recorded. My Department provides support to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to non-governmental organisations to help refugees across the world. Of course, the Home Office is responsible for refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. George: In the light of the recent atrocities in Kosovo, does the right hon. Lady agree that beside the inevitability of armchair generals having the benefit of hindsight, there is an opportunity to reap the benefit of foresight by recognising the problems created for her Department by the Immigration and Asylum Bill? Following her work with the UNHCR, which has been critical of that Bill, what representations has she made to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?

Clare Short: I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman is asking that question of the wrong Department. The previous Government took an exemption—that is not the correct word, but the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean—on the convention on the rights of the child in relation to child refugees. The UNHCR has written to me about the matter, and I have written to the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman might wish to follow up the issue with him.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State knows that the vast majority of the 22 million refugees to whom she referred are in the poorest countries of the world. What can the richer countries do to support those refugees and prevent the sorts of crises that create refugees?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I visited Tanzania briefly last week. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and is hosting 330,000 refugees—which is more than in Macedonia—who are mostly from Burundi. Our task is twofold: first, we must help the poorest countries to develop; and, secondly and more important, we must prevent and resolve conflicts so that refugees may return home—which is the overwhelming wish of all refugees.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the most distressing features of our short visit to Albania and Macedonia was meeting refugees who had sponsors to take them to Germany, the United Kingdom or elsewhere, but were unable to take up those offers because they did not have sufficient identification. Is the Secretary of State prepared to throw her weight against the UNHCR's incompetence and ensure that, when refugees have no papers, they speedily receive sufficient identification so that those who wish to befriend them can take them home?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Apart from killing, raping and displacing people, the Serbian aggressors in Kosovo have destroyed passports and records of birth and death in an attempt to obliterate the record of a people and thus take away their identity. It is the duty of the UNHCR to record every refugee and to supply documentation. I am afraid that that process has been slow, but there is now a concerted international effort in that regard. A new computer program—let us hope it works—aims to give people the identity documents that they will need in order to exercise their right to travel to other countries and be reunited with family members.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One recognises the Secretary of State's concern about refugees worldwide and one is also aware of the pressure to remove many refugees from northern Macedonia. Is it not possible to allow those refugees who have been in Albania for five weeks and have friends in the United Kingdom with refugee status to come to this country much sooner so that other refugees in Albania may move south?

Clare Short: There are more than 800,000 refugees in Albania and Macedonia, and large numbers are crossing the border into Albania every day. The Macedonian border has been closed. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and to the community at large not to suggest that somehow bringing a small number of refugees to Britain will solve the problem. We must care for people in the region, although those with medical or other special needs, or with family members in other countries, may be cared for elsewhere. If we do not follow that course, we will be doing Milosevic's work for him: he would love to see the refugees dispersed across the world. It has taken time to gear up the number of flights into Britain, but they are now increasing and there will be more under the criteria that I have outlined.

Regional Development Banks

Mrs. Christine Butler: What actions she is taking to increase the focus on poverty of the work of regional development banks. [82955]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since May 1997, we have been working to persuade all the regional development banks that poverty eradication must be their overarching objective. I am very pleased that the new president of the Asian development bank is refocusing the bank's attention on poverty eradication, and the African development bank has also given new emphasis to its poverty focus. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is currently attending the annual meeting of the Caribbean development bank, will emphasise the same message.

Mrs. Butler: What steps is the Department taking to encourage further collaboration between the regional agencies and the international financial institutions to reduce poverty?

Clare Short: As I said earlier, there are so many actors in the field of development—the United Nations agencies, bilateral donors, the regional development banks and the World bank—that there is a danger of reinventing the wheel and funding separate projects instead of working on a coherent proposal to strengthen government and economic management and achieve the kind of economic growth and social policy improvements that will lead to sustainable benefits in the lives of the poor. We are working very hard to achieve more international collaboration on international development targets, and the regional banks need to change to achieve that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Iraq

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the impact of the damage to (a) the water supply and (b) oil facilities in Iraq as a result of bombing since 23 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Patrols of the no-fly zones remain a vital humanitarian task to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south of Iraq. Since 23 March, our aircraft have been shot at or threatened some 75 times. Iraqi facilities that pose a threat may be targeted in self-defence; there is, however, no question of our targeting oil facilities or water supplies. Iraq has claimed that one such strike on part of its air defence network temporarily disrupted oil supplies, although no oil pipeline was damaged. We are unaware of any disruption to water supplies.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the assessment of the effect of depleted uranium on the water supply and on the health of the civilian population?

The Prime Minister: We have no such assessment, but we take the utmost care in what we do to make sure that we do not attach ourselves to the water or oil supplies. Indeed, as I said, there is evidence that, as a result of the action, one oil pipeline was damaged, but there is no evidence of damage to water supplies.
I point out to my hon. Friend that we have the no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi people from the Iraqi leader; otherwise, he would be free to do as he did, for example, when he used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 Kurds in the north of Iraq. This is a mission of protection—protection of the Iraqi people.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I give notice that I hope to raise this matter on a motion for the Adjournment.

Engagements

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 May.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and gave a speech in memory of John Smith, my predecessor as leader of the Labour party. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Brake: According to Chantrey Vellacott, which was recently described by a Minister as a leading UK accountancy firm, the Government's public-private partnership for the partial privatisation of London Underground will cost the taxpayer another £8 billion in

extra financing costs. Can the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime not think of better things on which to spend their money?

The Prime Minister: First, the figures are nonsense. Secondly, we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of privatisation that were made by the previous Government. Thirdly, I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of partnership between the public and private sectors, since we are most definitely in favour of it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Scottish Labour on achieving equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament, which is now level with legislatures in Scandinavian countries in its representation of women?

The Prime Minister: We believe that devolution to Scotland and Wales—and, we hope, to Northern Ireland—gives us the best chance of a modern partnership in the UK for the 21st century.

Mr. William Hague: Today is the 50th day of NATO's air campaign in Yugoslavia. We support the Government in their aims of getting the Serbs out of—[Interruption.] We have always supported the Government in their aims of getting the Serbs out of Kosovo and getting the refugees home and, like the Prime Minister, we want the air strikes to succeed. Does he believe that the air campaign as currently conducted will achieve in full the five specific objectives that he set out in the House on 23 March and again at the NATO summit in April?

The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. Secondly, yes, I believe that it will succeed, but I have made it clear on a number of occasions that, as the Secretary-General of NATO said, we must plan for all contingencies.
In respect of the air campaign, I can give the right hon. Gentleman some of the news of the damage that has been done: 70 per cent. of Serbia's military oil has gone; over half its usable aircraft have been destroyed; more than a fifth of the armoured units inside Kosovo are down; yesterday was the most successful allied day yet in hits on targets and artillery in Kosovo; and 40 per cent. of surface-to-air missiles have gone. There has been massive damage to Milosevic's infrastructure, but we must carry on and, if necessary, intensify.

Mr. Hague: These statistics are testimony to the professionalism of our forces and those of our allies, but the Chief of the Defence Staff said yesterday that NATO's air assault had "not stopped" the killings—understandably, it has not been able to stop them—and added that that was
extremely difficult to do with the air campaign we have".
Yet stopping the killings—we have heard the most horrific accounts of killings in recent days—is, of course, the most important of all the objectives. Despite all our hopes for the air strikes, might not NATO soon confront a difficult choice—either to accept a compromise, which the Prime Minister has already rightly said he would regard as failure, or to pursue a different military course which will achieve these objectives?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is true that many thousands of people have died in Kosovo; it is true that


the humanitarian suffering of those people has been enormous. That makes me all the more determined to reverse this policy of ethnic cleansing, and to allow these refugees back home. As far as I am concerned, there will be no compromise in NATO's demands; there must be no compromise. It is not simply a question of defeating this policy of ethnic cleansing. It is not simply a question either of NATO's credibility. If we allow, right in the heart of Europe, a policy—effectively—of racial genocide to succeed, we will pay the price of it for many, many years to come.

Mr. Hague: Across this House we agree that failure is not an option; this must be seen through to success. The future of hundreds of thousands of people and the lives of tens of thousands depend on it. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that General Guthrie and his fellow officers in NATO have the men, equipment and freedom of action to pursue a strategy that they believe will succeed?

The Prime Minister: I certainly can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, throughout, we have worked extremely closely with our armed forces. I pay personal tribute to Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, for his magnificent work.
It is important always—perhaps especially at this time when, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, we are 50 days into this campaign—to go back to the fundamentals of why we are doing this. It is for the reasons that I have given: the appalling suffering, the thousands who have died and the hundreds of thousands who have been displaced. But let us remember something else. In Bosnia, where there was a strong case for saying that we acted too late—for understandable reasons, but we did—250,000 people died. Three and a quarter million refugees are still dispersed in various parts of the world, including 1.25 million in the European Union, as a result. That happened because we did not stop Milosevic then. We must stop him now.

Mr. Hague: There remains a major concern about timing. The Prime Minister will have seen the comments of Lieutenant-General Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of NATO troops in Macedonia. He said that winter in Kosovo is
a severe several months. I see a very, very miserable and hard winter if we have refugees in tents over that period.
Given that assessment, does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that NATO's objectives are not just achieved, but achieved before the first snows of the Balkan winter in October?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our constant preoccupation that everything we do, including the planning that we undertake, bears in mind when winter in the Balkans comes. Our aims are perfectly clear and they will be met. The aims can be very simply summarised: Milosevic gets his troops out, we get our forces in, and the refugees go back home. That has been the bottom line from the beginning of this campaign, and it remains the case.

Mr. Hague: These are the objectives, but may I press the Prime Minister once more on the question of timing? The Opposition support the objectives of NATO and we

applaud the efforts of our forces, but we are concerned—as are many people in this country—that the air campaign has not succeeded so far, that preparation has not always been adequate and that time may be running out. Is it not the case that, if we wish to assemble and deploy troops in order to allow the refugees to return home before the winter, NATO needs to take any decision on ground troops in the very near future?

The Prime Minister: I will not remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said about ground forces some time ago. I will simply point out to the Opposition that these issues of planning are in our mind constantly. We understand exactly the point that is being made here.
I do not think that it is right to say that the air campaign is not succeeding. It is right to say that it has not yet succeeded in delivering our demands. However, we should look at what has happened to the military infrastructure in Serbia, and at what is happening on the ground in Kosovo, where, over the past two weeks, our efforts have intensified—and the weather in June is better than that in May, and that in July is better than that in June. I believe that it is important that we have a balanced picture.
I have already said that Milosevic does not have a veto on our options. He does not, and he never will. However, it is important that we carry on with the air campaign, and intensify it. The demands that we have set out have been very clearly held to. I am not the only one who is saying that there will be no compromise on those demands. I have a long list of quotations from every single Head of Government or Head of State of all the allied members, and they are all to exactly the same effect: there will be no compromise on our basic demands.

Mr. Marsha Singh: I am sorry to change the sombre mood of the House, but other life does go on. Will the Prime Minister, given his interest in football, join me in congratulating Bradford City football club on achieving promotion to the premier league after being out of the top flight for 77 years? Does he share my pride, and the pride of the Bradford people, in that great achievement?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I look forward to Bradford playing Newcastle next season.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I draw the Prime Minister back to the central question of timing? After 50 days of conflict, time is beginning to press hard on the Kosovo situation. The coming heat of the summer months will create a breeding ground for despair, if not disease, in the refugee camps and, if we are required to use troops to get the refugees back home before the winter, a decision on deployment must probably be made within a fortnight or so. President Milosevic may not be limiting our options, but does the Prime Minister realise that delay could close off our options for us?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the leader of the Conservative party a moment ago, I am acutely aware of the issue of time, the issue of the winter and the need to plan for all contingencies. As for the refugees, it is worth pointing out that something miraculous has been achieved, mainly—or at least to a very considerable


extent—as a result of the work of British troops in Macedonia and in Albania. We can be immensely proud of what they have done. As a result, we are able to cope with the refugees now.
However, when one of the refugees, who came to Oldham a few days ago, was asked whether the refugees were pleased to be in this country, that person said that they were very happy to be here, but they wanted to go back home. That is why the refugees are our main concern, and we must not let up for an instant until they are allowed back home.

Mr. Ashdown: It is precisely for that reason that I addressed that question. The Prime Minister is well aware that we have resolutely supported this operation, and he can count on our continuing support. He is aware, too, that although we hope that the bombing succeeds, we have always rather doubted that it would. Is it not the case that if, in the end, bombing proves insufficient, our will to deploy troops on the ground will determine whether the end of this is victory or compromise? I simply say to The Prime Minister: I think that we have two weeks to make that choice.

The Prime Minister: I cannot do much more than repeat what I have said. There is no veto by Milosevic on how we use ground forces. It has always been anticipated that we would use ground forces; the question is the circumstances in which we do so. We plan for all contingencies. It is important, however, that we recognise the success that the air campaign has had. We should continue it and intensify it; we should make sure that it is as effective as possible; and, as I said a moment or two ago, we should carry on planning for all contingencies.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: After my right hon. Friend's huge success in delivering on his election promises, will he consider a new pledge to introduce a £5 television licence for all pensioners? Such a pledge would be welcomed by old-age pensioners in Chorley and all over the country, and we could look forward to it.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that that would make me immensely popular with our pensioners, but it would probably make me less popular with the Chancellor. In the end, such pledges must be paid for, and the cost would run into several hundred million pounds. I am well aware that many pensioners feel aggrieved that there are different television licence rates for two groups of pensioners—those who are in sheltered accommodation and those who are not. I remember raising the matter as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament in 1983. The problem has always been the cost, and I am afraid that it will remain so.

Devolution

Mr. Peter Luff: If, following the election of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales, he will review the organisation of government as regards matters relating exclusively to England.

The Prime Minister: The interests of all parts of the United Kingdom continue to be properly covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Luff: After last week's elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the single most

important constitutional question facing the House is how to strengthen the Union, while making England's treatment within the Union fairer. Does the Prime Minister intend to give to the regional assemblies that he plans for England the power to pass primary legislation?

The Prime Minister: No, we have not said that. We have said that if there is a demand for regional assemblies, we will listen to it. I gather that, earlier today, the hon. Gentleman asked that we create a federal system inside the United Kingdom. I believe that the UK is best served by ensuring that we have a different way between separatism on the one hand and the status quo on the other. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in respect of all the money that goes to Scotland and to Wales, all Members of Parliament, including English Members, vote on it. As for the system of election in the United Kingdom, I am still pondering the consequences of my own generosity for his party. I believe that we will have strong, stable government in Scotland and Wales, but within the UK.

Engagements

Mr. Fraser Kemp: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last Thursday's elections produced two amazing results for the Labour party? One was that we demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that we were the most popular mid-term Government this century. The second amazing result to benefit the Labour party was that the Leader of the Opposition just managed to hang on to his job.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted if members of the Conservative party think that they did extremely well last Thursday. As for the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that he has wide support in every part of the House.

Mr. Tom King: May I confirm to the Prime Minister that I continue to believe that he is entitled to the widest support in the House in the tragically difficult undertaking on which the country has embarked with the other members of NATO? During the process, which is likely to be long, people in this country will ask tough and difficult questions about the conduct of affairs. I believe that the Prime Minister's approach today is the right way to respond to those questions—not the approach of someone who appears to be in his office, who suggests that, if questions are asked about the conduct of the campaign, that somehow calls into question the basic loyalty of the House. If that approach is adopted and criticism is delivered in that way, it will only undermine the cross-party support that I am sure the Prime Minister is seeking to maintain.

The Prime Minister: First, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. One of the strengths of our democracy is that people are able to ask questions about the conduct of the war. I ask only that, in giving us that support, people recognise that, from time to time, there are extremely difficult decisions to make and that, particularly in a situation such as this, there are no easy options. I believe that the vast majority of Members of the House recognise that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Prime Minister knows that I support the


bombing of military targets in Yugoslavia, for exactly the reasons that he has set out once more today, but could we not avoid undue civilian casualties by following the principle propounded by Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who asked us to err on the side of proportionality? In particular, cluster bombs should not be dropped in civilian areas, the Vinca nuclear research institute near Belgrade should not be attacked and we should contact the Americans to stop them using depleted uranium.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the air campaign. We, of course, try to make sure that we avoid civilian casualties as much as we possibly can. In respect of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in particular, we have made it clear—and I make it clear again now—that we profoundly apologise, both to the Chinese people and to the Chinese Government, for what has happened. It was a tragic accident, but it should never have happened.
We do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties; I only ask people to bear it in mind that we are engaged in this air campaign because the dictator in Serbia is perfectly happy, as an act of deliberate policy, to butcher and murder ordinary civilian people. I know that those people who are planning this campaign and taking those decisions do so with the heaviest sense of responsibility. Indeed, the first thing that strikes anyone who has talked to British pilots engaged in action is their sense of responsibility. There is nothing gung-ho about them and nothing macho about the way in which they go about things. They recognise that they have this power for a purpose and they try to use it in a way that minimises civilian casualties.

Mr. Eric Pickles: On 20 May last year, in column 952 of Hansard, the Prime Minister promised to review the way in which war widows pensions relate to housing benefit. A year has passed, and nothing has happened. This is not a very complicated matter and it surely does not take 12 months to review. The right hon. Gentleman has made a promise, but he has not delivered. Why not?

The Prime Minister: We have explained constantly that the problem is cost, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he supported a Government who were in power for 18 years and never did that. I appreciate that we now have the responsibility for those decisions. We have said that we will look at it, and we will do that, but the problem is simply one of cost.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tory gain."]—that we owe an enormous debt to our fanning community for producing high-quality food and maintaining our countryside? Will he do all in his power to ensure that there is a future for small family farms and for young farmers who enter the industry, and support for agri-environmental schemes and conversion to organic farming, in which there is tremendous interest in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: I love the way that the Tories celebrate their Scottish and Welsh election results; it is a marvellous thing to behold. In relation to—[Interruption.] The more they think it is a good result, the better we are.
In relation to farming support, it is correct that we have announced an aid package of over £120 million. Obviously, we recognise the difficult circumstances that farmers have been in, but I want to pick up one particular point on organic farming. Since coming to power, we have increased by eight times the support that we give to organic farming. There is now five times as much land in production for organic farming as there was when we came to office. I hope that we are trying our best to support the farming industry, but are also trying to invest in environmentally friendly forms of modern farming.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Prime Minister will be aware that we are within one week of the first anniversary of the Belfast agreement. People voted by a large majority for a democratic way of government in Northern Ireland, and for guns and bombs to be a thing of the past. Will the Prime Minister unequivocally reassure the House and the people of Northern Ireland in particular that, at a time when the godfather of terrorist godfathers, Martin McGuinness, has been nominated as a potential member of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly, he will stick to the promise that he and his Government made that illegal guns and bombs cannot be a part of a democratic process, and that there will be no question of forcing Sinn Fein into an Executive until it has met its obligations in that respect?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that it is a term of taking office in the Executive that people forswear violence. Should they go back to violence, there are provisions to expel them from the Executive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Good Friday agreement—which, according to a recent poll, is still supported by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—offers the only right way forward. We are looking at how to ensure that both sides of the community—obviously, in the hon. Gentleman's case, it is the Unionist community—have the trust and the confidence that violence has been given up for good, allowing people to go into government together. I hope that that occurs, because easily the best thing that could happen to the politics of Northern Ireland is that devolution takes place on the basis of a universal commitment to peace and democracy. Northern Ireland politics should debate not the sectarian issues that it has debated for so many years, but the ordinary issues of schools, hospitals, ordinary crime in our streets, local government—the issues that are the bread and butter of everyday politics here.

Mr. Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in three years' time—the Queen's golden jubilee year—Manchester will host the 17th Commonwealth games. They will be the biggest yet, and will provide a huge opportunity for the city, the country and the international sporting community. Now that the site for the stadium is being cleared for construction, will the Prime Minister continue to ensure the full support of the Government for the games, so that in 2002 we can all enjoy a celebration of Commonwealth friendship and sporting achievement?

The Prime Minister: The games in Manchester in 2002 will be the biggest multi-sporting event in Britain since the 1948 Olympic games. More than 5,000 athletes from some 70 countries will compete, and we have earmarked £112 million of lottery money for the building of the new facilities. I am sure that it will be a tremendous showcase not just for Manchester, but for the whole of Britain.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: In opposition, the right hon. Gentleman often accused the Conservative Government of selling off the family silver. Will he now tell the House and the country why he and his Government are selling off the family gold?

The Prime Minister: First of all, it was actually Harold Macmillan who used the phrase "selling off the family silver". Secondly, I assume that the hon. Lady's remarks mean that the Conservative party is now against privatisation in addition to its commitment to public spending. Thirdly, as for gold, I have never come across so much nonsense as that talked by the Conservative party. It talks as if this was some stealthy plan to get us into the euro. Countries all around the world diversify so that some parts of their reserves are in

currency and some in gold. That is entirely sensible. Only today's Conservative party could be ideologically opposed to it.

Mr. Mark Todd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the submission made by representatives of rural South Derbyshire at a packed meeting in Melbourne on the rural White Paper consultation? Many issues were raised at that vibrant meeting, and one of the suggestions made was that we should tackle the issue of how to encourage rural enterprise that is sustainable in a rural area, so that we move away from the dormitory culture of car-borne commuting in rural England and towards genuinely sustainable communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that suggestion?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that the role of small businesses, in particular, will feature largely in the White Paper that will be published shortly. That, of course, comes on top of the new rate relief for village shops, the financial support for farmers and the creation of the new Countryside Agency.
As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, this side of the House of Commons now represents more rural constituencies than the other side. Long may that continue.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, there has recently been some discussion in the House about the broadcasting of "Yesterday in Parliament". Can you tell us whether you have received any more recent communication from the BBC?
I ask this question on a point of order because it has been reported that, apparently, the BBC is now seriously considering putting "Yesterday in Parliament" back on FM. That would be welcome, and I hope that it happens; but it seems that the BBC is also considering broadcasting the item very early, which would mean that many people who would like to hear it—much of the public, indeed—would probably not be able to do so.
I hope—as, no doubt, do you, Madam Speaker—that, in considering where and how "Yesterday in Parliament" should be broadcast, the BBC will recognise its responsibilities, and will allow those who want to listen to what is happening in Parliament to do so.

Madam Speaker: I have had no recent exchange of correspondence on the issue, but the House will know of my robust views. I have made them clear in the House, as well as to the chairman of the BBC: the correspondence that I have had is in the Library for all to see. As far as I am concerned, "Yesterday in Parliament" should be returned to its former slot, on FM and at 8.40 am—and the sooner that is done, the better.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you noted and were concerned by—as you have been in the past—

reports in the press of a matter that has not yet been announced to the House. Several newspapers, over several days, have referred to ministerial and departmental sources in giving a full account of the planned sell-off of the Tote, which is due to be announced in the House today.
I know that you want announcements to be made to the House first, so I wonder whether you want to make a statement about that. I also wonder whether you have received a request from the Home Secretary to make a statement—or, for that matter, a request from the Foreign Secretary, who is known to be wholly opposed to the idea.

Madam Speaker: I have received no request from any Minister to make a statement on the matter. As a long-standing Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers make announcements to the House by two methods—an oral statement at the Dispatch Box, and written answers. I understand that the Home Secretary has answered a question on this very issue, and that his answer was released about three minutes ago.

Bill Presented

REFERENDUM (ENGLISH PARLIAMENT)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman, supported by Mr. David Davis, Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. James Gray, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. David Amess and Mr. Howard Flight, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in England on the establishment and tax-varying powers of an English Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 98].

Country Lanes and Villages

Mrs. Helen Brinton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable traffic authorities to make provision in rural areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders have priority on the carriageway over mechanically propelled vehicles for the purpose of improving safety and protecting the character of the countryside; to make provision for reduction of the national speed limit for certain rural roads; and for related purposes.
The Bill would give local authorities power to designate any rural roads in their areas for which they are the traffic authorities as quiet lanes, where pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists would have priority over motor vehicles. There would be a speed limit of 20 mph. Such designations would follow consultation with any affected parish or community council, other bodies or persons concerned with the protection of the environment, and representatives of road user groups or local businesses.
By amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Bill would give the Secretary of State power to set a national speed limit for motor vehicles on all roads classified C and on all unclassified roads, of no more than 40 mph—at present, the limit is 60 mph; of no more than 20 mph on designated quiet lanes; and of no more than 20 mph through villages. A village would be a group of dwellings exceeding 50 per cent. of frontages on both sides of a road.
I am sure that the purposes of the Bill are clear. Its measures would improve safety on rural roads, encourage the enjoyment of the countryside and protect its character and distinctiveness from damage by unsuitable traffic and traffic speeds. The Bill will help to tackle issues such as traffic intimidation, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions drew attention in last summer's transport White Paper.
That document spelt out the need and desirability of creating an integrated transport system, of encouraging forms of transport other than the car and of the greater use of 20 mph zones by local authorities. As it pointed out, in areas with such a speed limit, the frequency of accidents has been reduced by about 60 per cent. and accidents involving children have fallen by 67 per cent.
In 1997, 10 times more people were killed in accidents on rural roads than on motorways. Seventy per cent. of fatal car accidents occur on rural roads. While only 9 per cent. of all cyclist casualties occur on rural roads, those account for 45 per cent. of cycle deaths from road accidents. Those figures highlight the importance of the Government's national speed policy review to address the problems of rural roads through measures of the sort that are contained in the Bill.
In the previous Session, I obtained leave to introduce a Bill for "home zones"—zones in residential areas that have much lower speed limits, more pedestrian areas and design features that emphasise the change in priority from motor vehicles to people. I was delighted that home zones received several mentions in the White Paper and that the Department is working with local authorities that want to design pilot zones within current legislation. The Department is committed to a formal evaluation of those after a period.
The proposed quiet lanes and villages with lower speed limits are clearly parallel measures for the countryside. However, as the White Paper said:
Traditional traffic management measures can have an urban look and can be even more damaging in the countryside than on the appearance of our towns. We will therefore encourage the continued development of new and imaginative ways of designing local traffic schemes to make them more sensitive to their surroundings.
The Bill follows early-day motion 348 of the same title, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), and which has, so far, attracted more than 150 signatures; I hope that it will gain even more. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, appreciate his excellent and continuing work, which is part of the year-long campaign "Safer Country Lanes for All", which is organised by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I hope that the House will agree that the measure is an essential part of that campaign.
I note that the recent report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the transport White Paper stated that
the fear of traffic on country lanes has discouraged other users, such as walkers and cyclists…speeding traffic blights the lives of those living in villages and creates a perception that roads are no longer safe for all".
The report recommended a national speed limit of 30 mph or less through all villages, including those on main roads. I am sure that we all know of rural areas that were, even until very recently, safe enough for walkers, cyclists and children to play in, which are now too dangerous because of increased traffic. I know of two examples in East Anglia: lanes around the village of Thornage in Norfolk, where the closure of the village shop and school have meant that residents have to drive elsewhere for those services; and Blackhills corner to Primrose corner near Norwich, where the lane has become a rat run for traffic wanting to avoid a longer link road to the west.
It is apparent from those examples that the causes of increased traffic in rural areas are very complex. Rural residents have to use their cars, if they own them, because of the lack of adequate local facilities and public transport. Traffic in rural areas is forecast to rise even faster than that in urban areas.
There are more cars on our roads in general, giving town dwellers greater access to remote areas than ever before. It is surely true to say that more people today can enjoy the relative peace and beauty of the countryside than at any time since the industrial revolution removed them for large sections of the population. In those days, the wealthy could of course continue to drive in and out of towns in their carriages.
It is apparent, however, that the quality of rural life, and even in some cases the survival of its distinctive character, are being fatally prejudiced by road traffic changes. The CPRE estimates the tranquil countryside lost in England in the past 30 years to be of an area the size of Wales. A lot of that is due to road traffic.
A survey in Shropshire found that 110 parish councils had approached the county council or local police over the previous 10 years because of problems of excessive speed. Another survey, in 1996, by the then Countryside Commission, showed that people in both town and country care about the countryside: 91 per cent. thought that
society has a moral duty to protect the countryside.


The Government have promised a rural White Paper later this year. It should address in an integrated way the issues surrounding the decline in quality of our rural areas. I believe that the measures in the Bill are an essential part of any attempt to reverse that decline. There is a need for new legislation to reduce speed limits and give local authorities new powers to designate rural roads where motor traffic will not have priority.
There are serious flaws in the current approach to managing speeding traffic, deriving from the self-fulfilling nature of the dangers: people increasingly avoid what they perceive to be dangerous roads and—surprise, surprise—local authorities then find that those roads are not much used by non-motor traffic, so higher speed limits seem appropriate.
I do not have time to expand on the technical points, but I am sure that Ministers and officials will be aware of the problems associated with the current approach to speed management. I hope that quiet lanes and reduced speed limits on country lanes and in villages will become part of Government policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Peter Bradley, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. David Drew, Mr. John Mc William, Dr. Ian Gibson and Ms Joan Walley.

COUNTRY LANES AND VILLAGES

Mrs. Helen Brinton accordingly presented a Bill to enable traffic authorities to make provision in rural areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders have priority on the carriageway over mechanically propelled vehicles for the purpose of improving safety and protecting the character of the countryside; to make provision for reduction of the national speed limit for certain rural roads; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 99].

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

DEFINITIONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before clause 1 becomes part of the Bill, I wish to refer the Committee to subsection (4), which starts with the words, "Victim of violence", and continues with a definition of that term. It had been my intention to be here on Monday to take part in the Second Reading, but for reasons that I conveyed to Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present. However, I read the Minister's speech carefully and with some interest, and he referred repeatedly to "The Disappeared".
It is important, as we pass this nasty little Bill, that at least we are not taken in by our own rhetoric. It was, I believe, Lenin who used to say that the whole point of terrorism was to terrorise people. That was also a favourite phrase of Michael Collins. What we are talking about in the Bill is terrorising people—cold-blooded acts by people who set out to abduct, torture and kill, probably in the most unpleasant ways. They do so not just for the sake of killing, although that was part of the very nature of the IRA, but to terrorise not just families but communities. The Bill will allow some degree of excuse for that terrorism.
I understand the background to the Bill, and the Minister will know that when I held the post that he now holds I was the first Minister who started the peace talks that culminated 10 years later in the Good Friday agreement. He also knows that everything that I have said since the agreement has broadly been in support of the Government and what they seek to do, so we do not have to have a debate about whether I am in favour of the Government's objectives. I shall not sit quietly by, however, and allow the Bill to pass without helping people to understand that the Minister was so generous as to be unbelievable when he said on Second Reading that this is a humanitarian Bill. This is not a humanitarian Bill: it is a piece of cynicism, driven by the IRA, derived from a propaganda need to take some of the pressure off it at the time of the Hillsborough talks. The Bill is deplored by some of those at the heart of the benefit that may accrue from its passage.
We all know that after up to 30 years there are a number of families in Northern Ireland who still sorrow and grieve, and who have not had the opportunity to give to their loved ones the dignity of a proper, Christian burial. That instinct is very strong among hon. Members of all parties in this House, but the IRA does not begin to understand it.
This Bill is a nasty, cynical piece of manipulation which the Governments of Great Britain and of the Irish Republic have felt compelled to introduce to their


legislatures for reasons of the greater good. All hon. Members support the families and sympathise with them, but we must proceed honestly and recognise the Bill for what it is. Today, we are recognising the terrorism, awfulness and cynicism of an organisation that still exists to terrorise for its own purposes.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I well understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about his past record and his on-going support as we go down the difficult road towards achieving our ultimate objective of a peaceful Northern Ireland. When he held my office, he had to take part in some difficult decisions. However, he said that this was a nasty little Bill. Does he hold the same opinion of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which he supported? That contained many of the same precepts that appear in this Bill. He said that the Bill is not a humanitarian measure, but how does he address the concerns of the families?
In my speech on Second Reading, which the right hon. Gentleman said that he read in detail, I did not talk about terrorism in any sympathetic way. He will know that I condemned unreservedly terrorism and the barbarism associated with the acts leading up to the disappearance of these people. I said that they were probably beaten and tortured, that they had had no right to a proper trial or to an appeal, and that their fundamental human rights had been taken away. I gave not an inch on that.
On 29 March, the Provisional IRA announced that it was prepared to provide information about some of the people who had been disappeared. The two Governments therefore had to act, or decide not to act. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that we should not have acted, but instead should have put pressure on the Provisional IRA—in ways that he has not defined—and thereby somehow turn up the information that we are seeking to obtain on behalf of the families. However, the pressure exerted over 30 years did not bring one iota of comfort to some of the families involved.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No.
The difficulty and dilemma with which the Government were faced in dealing with the information from the Provisional IRA lay in how to put it into effect. The Provisional IRA's announcement contained no absolutes or guarantees that the information would be released.
On Second Reading, I asked the House a question to which I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) will give consideration. If not through this Bill, by what other means does the right hon. Gentleman expect the information to come from the Provisional IRA? We must think all the time of those families, and the trauma with which they have lived for 30 years. Those who argue against this Bill cast them aside and do them no service at all.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Better than most, I understand the dilemma that the Minister faces. I shall not vote against the clause standing part of the Bill: in these circumstances, as I have already said, the Government have to do what they have to do. However, I ask the

Minister to recognise that the Bill is a reflection of the terrorising and cynical manipulation practised by the people with whom we are seeking to do business in a bid to bring peace to the 1.5 million decent, law-abiding people in the Province.
I ask that the Minister does not use the sort of language that might be used in other circumstances when there have been unavoidable tragedies. As I said earlier, the hearts of every hon. Member in the Chamber, irrespective of party, go out to the families.
I have had to announce enough bloody deaths in Northern Ireland to be sure that no one can accuse me of having no sensitivity for or sympathy with the bereaved. But I do not want the message to go to Northern Ireland that the House used the civilised language employed for normal tragedies to make rosy a determined and deliberate attempt to terrorise by using this sort of mechanism in the knowledge that the Minister's good instincts and those of the rest of the House would respond to it.
In Ulster terms, let us call a spade—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was intervening, not making a second speech?

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention was worth while because of its length. He addressed several points that needed to be made, and we shall debate them now and on other parts of the Bill. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not opposing the Bill, merely highlighting its enormity and the difficulties associated with it. To those who do oppose the Bill, however, I have to ask a question: if not this Bill, what?
One of the jobs with which I am tasked is that of being the Minister for victims. On coming into Government, I was amazed to find out how blank the sheet was on that subject. That was true not only of the previous Administration, and I do not seek to overstress that point, by and large, of the wider community in Northern Ireland no one had begun to address the complexity, enormity and depth of trauma within that society. Many individuals—including politicians—used victims as political footballs. They were brought out when there was a point to be scored, but no one gave support, encouragement or hope.
It was largely left to voluntary organisations to provide that support, although many were supported by public money. No coherent way was developed for dealing with issues connected with victims. We have begun to address the problem, but have begun only to touch on its extent. The more we do, the more we shall expose the deep difficulties in Northern Ireland, and no one—certainly no politician—has all the answers to the problems.
My central point is that the Bill begins to address a fundamental problem, but it is not easy to do so. We have made no apology for the actions of terrorists and paramilitaries, and nothing in the language of my Second Reading speech could be deemed to have given any word of comfort to terrorists. No one who spoke in that debate gave a word of comfort to those who carried out the actions addressed by the Bill.
I hope that the message of that debate has been absorbed in the wider republican and loyalist communities that support the people of violence. Now is the time to stop and to search for new ways forward.
It might benefit the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire to read debates on similar legislation in the Dail in which there was strong condemnation of the Provisional IRA and explanation of why the Bill was necessary.
Nothing was given away in our debate, a sombre debate that addressed the issue properly. I commend the clause.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that the members of the terrorist IRA had no clear understanding of the grief and legitimate expectations of the families of victims. The brutal fact, as he acknowledged in his later intervention, is that the IRA has made a harsh analysis of the expectations of those who grieve, and it seeks to manipulate the people so tragically involved. That sickens me to the stomach. Hon. Members will concede that I have repeatedly said that these people are engaged not in a military campaign or guerrilla warfare, but in the most brutal form of terrorism in a mature parliamentary democracy. I have some sympathy for what the right hon. Gentleman said, but having met some of the families concerned, their interests, concerns and legitimate demands should override all else.

4 pm

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I do not like being in conflict with the Minister any more than he does, but what he said on Second Reading and reiterated today about no one appearing to care about the victims of violence gives deep offence to ordinary people in Northern Ireland. For 30 years, we have cared for them. They are people among whom we live. They are our friends, people we know. He must recognise that with more than 200 victims of violence in my constituency alone—mostly, but not exclusively, victims of the IRA—there is nothing new in what he says that he wishes to achieve. Rather, what he says that he wishes to achieve is being negated by the way in which he goes about it.
It is not a question of 15 or 16 families for whom we feel tremendous sympathy, but of more than 3,000 people who have died as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland. For the Minister to say that only the voluntary organisations appear to care is not a condemnation of ordinary, elected Members from Northern Ireland—whatever their political aspirations—but a reflection on the Northern Ireland Office. It channelled 250 million ecu—more than £200 million—that came to Northern Ireland as a peace and reconciliation package to some very undeserving causes.
The money did not exclusively go to such causes; I admit that a large part was employed usefully, although I am not sure that much was of long-term benefit. There is a rather sick joke in Northern Ireland that people have to have served a term in prison as terrorists to become community workers. That generalisation is perhaps unfortunate, but I am afraid that much of the money for peace and reconciliation was channelled through organisations that had a short-sighted approach to what victims of violence needed. The police and the security forces were excluded from any part of the money, although they were at the coal face.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's belated sensitivity and

concern for victims is the result of the outrage expressed by victims' groups about the amount of money given to ex-prisoners, ex-convicts, ex-gangsters, murderers and extortioners to placate their organisations and make them favour the peace process?

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout society in Northern Ireland, horror has been expressed at the way in which money has been expended. I do not doubt that there were good intentions. I do not for one moment suggest that what the Government do is always done for perverse reasons. However, it is wrong for the Minister to point the finger at elected Members from Northern Ireland, who live with the problem, and have lived with the problem every day for 30 years. What concerns me most in all the Minister has said is that he continues to point across the Chamber saying, in effect, "What would you do to recover the bodies of 'The Disappeared'?" The reality is that it is not our responsibility because we have not murdered anyone. We cannot and should not undermine the fundamental law on which our whole society depends in order to make an accommodation for those victims, however deserving they are—and I stress that they are deserving. However, we cannot undermine the fundamentals of the law.
I want to put the Minister right on another point. He tried to compare this measure, which undermines the principle of the law, with the legislation on disarmament. The circumstances are entirely different, although some people would agree with him that there is no difference. However, I and many other people do see a difference, in so far as legislation to get rid of the weapons of war—the illegal guns and bombs—is honourable. It holds out hope for the future of the people of Northern Ireland, if the opportunity to disarm is grasped by those to whom it is offered. However, this Bill is different. First and foremost, as the Minister has admitted, it does not guarantee that one body will be delivered up, although I hope that that will happen. More importantly, it does not ensure greater safety for society in Northern Ireland as a whole-as the exclusion of illegal guns and bombs would do. Therein lies the folly of the measure.

Mr. William Thompson: Anyone with any faith in law and order must regard this as a squalid little Bill. Although we understand the humanitarian concerns and the concerns of those whose relatives were murdered, the fact is that the Bill puts humanitarian issues before the rule of law. That should not happen in any democracy. Furthermore, we can see from clause 1 that the Government of the Republic of Ireland is regarded as the Government of Ireland. In legislation, the Government of the Republic of Ireland used to be called the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but now, as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement and various other agreements, the Government of the Republic of Ireland is designated the Government of Ireland. That is an insult.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As the Government have used that terminology in the measure, are they not endorsing a territorial claim? The Government of the Irish Republic are claiming to be the Government of Ireland; that is a claim to the territory of


Northern Ireland. It is bad enough that they should claim that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Government should never endorse it?

Mr. Thompson: I certainly agree. When a previous Bill went through the House, we were told that "the Government of Ireland" was what the Government of the Republic of Ireland wanted to be known as or had designated themselves as. However, the policy of any United Kingdom Government should be not to refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland as "the Government of Ireland" or to put that phrase in legislation, but to refer to that Government as it stands in relation to the United Kingdom, which is as the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does not the clause contain a territorial claim in its reference to:
Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom"?
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so the problem the hon. Gentleman raises does not exist.

Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is not relevant to my argument. I accept that the United Kingdom, as I understand it, includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland; however, the issue is not the term we use for ourselves, but the term we use for the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about the term "United Kingdom" implying a territorial claim. However, several years ago at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Ottawa, the representative from the Dail Eireann moved that the phrase
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
should be deleted. Although representatives of this Parliament opposed the motion, it was passed by a weighted majority of the other nations in order to placate the Irish Republic. In other words, we limit the United Kingdom when we use the phrase "the Government of Ireland" to refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Ministers hear Unionist objections, but they do not listen to them or care about them; instead, they ignore them. However, if Members of Parliament representing the nationalists were sitting in the Committee today and making objections, Ministers would be doing everything possible to placate and please them. Ministers do not care what Unionists think.
This squalid little Bill represents an acknowledgement that those who committed the crimes would never be brought to justice. We have been told many times when depredations have occurred that those who have committed the crimes would be brought to justice, but in many cases they never have been. The Bill represents an acknowledgement that the killers in the cases it covers will never be brought to justice. In fact, because of the Bill, it is likely that fewer efforts will be made to investigate those cases and, as a result, the killers will never be brought to justice.

Mr. Robert McCartney: When responding to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire

(Sir B. Mawhinney), the Minister remarked that public representatives in Northern Ireland had taken small cognisance of the fate and condition of victims over the years. That remark should be withdrawn, because the truth is that this Government took scarcely any cognisance at all of the condition of victims, especially those in south Armagh, where, in a relatively small community, over a period of years and in circumstances of the utmost barbarity, more than 70 murders took place, of which 58 currently remain unsolved.
4.15 pm
Because the victims were murdered one by one and were not part of a single outrage—as had happened in other parts of the Province—they were simply ignored. An organisation was formed only recently in south Armagh to redress the balance. Those victims were ignored because, for many years, it was not fashionable or politically expedient for the Government to acknowledge former reservists, ex-members of the UDR or serving soldiers who had been killed.
In pursuit of the peace process and under the terms of the Belfast agreement, however, this Government found themselves committed to spending large amounts of public money on the welfare and rehabilitation of former murderers and criminals. That provoked outrage among victims' families and became a very big issue. It became a moral issue: people contrasted the extraordinarily generous treatment afforded to ex-prisoners, many of whom had committed murders, with the treatment afforded to their victims. The victims, who had suffered for so many years in silence because successive Governments did little for their welfare, were outraged at the insensitivity of this Government. That is what motivates the Government, not any sense of public good.
As in so many other matters, the Government have seized upon an overtly and nakedly emotional, even sentimental, issue: the bodies of "The Disappeared" and the natural grief of their families, who want to give their loved ones a Christian burial. In an attempt to raise public indignation about the victims and to redress the balance regarding their treatment of the prisoners, the Government have converted this into a noble issue involving moral rescue work on behalf of the relatives of "The Disappeared". What is the price of that work? It is not very different from the price that was paid for decommissioning—the terrorists price.

The Chairman: Order. I have been generous to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I appreciate that he was not present for Second Reading, but I am beginning to feel that he is making the speech that he might have made on that occasion. I cannot allow that as we are considering whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McCartney: I accept your remarks, Sir Alan, which are entirely justified. I apologise if I have strained your patience.
It does not lie in the mouth of the Minister to make accusations against representatives from Northern Ireland who not only feel for the victims but, out of long experience and as indigenous people of Northern Ireland, have the capacity to share their grief.

Mr. Ingram: This has been a useful debate. If some of those Members who have spoken today had turned up for Second Reading, we might have extended that debate.

Mr. Thompson: If the Government had recognised the ability of Northern Ireland Members to travel to Westminster at short notice, the Minister might have been justified in making that remark.

Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether that is a demand for home rule for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members seem to think that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom. Every other Member of Parliament had the same notice of the debate, and many of them were here to vote. No complication was put in the hon. Gentleman's way. I appreciate that Northern Ireland Members may have had something more important and pressing to do, but that is a matter for them.
I shall deal with what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said because he sought to put words into my mouth. I did not say that the people of Northern Ireland do not care; I think they care, but they have been looking for leadership, which they have not had. Only recently have we been able to begin to address some of these issues. I recognise that the Ulster Unionist party made suggestions about how to deal with one aspect of the victims issue. Those suggestions were not comprehensive and did not deal with the whole range of victims, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, but they were none the less helpful. Those suggestions fed into the Good Friday agreement, from which emerged Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review on victims.
I say to Members who have spoken in this debate that they all had an opportunity to contribute to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's consultation process, but not one of them did so. No party made its views known to Sir Kenneth. I am not saying that they did not care, but they had an opportunity to try to condition the Government's thinking and they did not avail themselves of it.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone seemed to say, as others do, that this issue is the Government's responsibility and that "The Disappeared" are the responsibility of those who carried out those dreadful murders. The terrorists undoubtedly have a function to perform: they must give information, and we hope that we can bring them to justice. I make no bones about that. The Bill clearly limits our capacity to bring them to justice, but we want to do so, and I am sure that the families of the victims would welcome that, as would society and those involved in the judicial process.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, who said that this issue is the Government's responsibility, that all politicians have a responsibility to try to find answers. If the Government are not getting it right, hon. Members should tell us where we are going wrong.

Mr. Maginnis: You have never listened, and you are not listening now.

The Chairman: Order. We do not want sedentary interventions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Ingram: We are dealing with the specific issue of victims, not the panoply of Government policy. Our document was put out for consultation, but there was

no response. Well into the implementation of that report, I requested representatives from individual parties to meet me. I did so of my own volition, not because of demands from the parties. It took months to get the parties to provide names of representatives whom they had appointed to talk about the victims issue.
I make that point because when the Government are accused of doing nothing, hon. Members should look to themselves and consider what they have been doing over the years. Wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is no solution to the trauma of deeply troubled people. I have to deal with those people.
I am not from Northern Ireland, but that does not mean that I do not care or that any of those who deal with the issue do not care if they do not come from Northern Ireland. Having dealt with individual cases, we shall carry the hurt for a long time afterwards. Many of my officials must have counselling because they are dealing with cases to an even greater extent than I am. Hon. Members should not diminish what we seek to achieve in the Bill and make out that only the Government and those who carried out the violent acts have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility, not only on this issue, but on wider issues.

Mr. Robert McCartney: On the issue of making contributions and listening, I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of Families Acting for Innocent Relatives. Four weeks later, at a meeting with the Secretary of State that was organised by FAIR, she still had not read the letter that had been sent to her and her secretary.

Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether that is a fact.

Mr. McCartney: It is a fact.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. and learned Gentleman may tell me that it is a fact, but it does not relate to the point that I was making about the Bloomfield report. Why did he not respond to that heavyweight document, which endeavoured to deal with a complex issue that has remained forgotten for 30 years? Many people in Northern Ireland fall into the category of victims, and have come forward for help and now work in the various groups, but there are many others—not just those who have seen death in their families, but those who have had to put up with long-term injury in their families—who do not come forward, either as individuals who have suffered or as relatives of those who have been injured. That conveys the enormity of the broader reach of the issue with which we are having to deal.
This measure deals with just one small category of people. In the arguments deployed in this debate, I have yet to hear a suggestion as to how we should deal with the issue, other than to blame someone else. That does not provide an answer.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I know that the Minister would not want to mislead the Committee or be inaccurate. He said that none of us had responded to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. If he consults Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, he will discover that at least one did. I speak for myself in that instance. Were not my hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) appointed to deal with the matter, and did not they seek to do so? I want to put


the record straight. Although we recognise the trauma that has affected English and Scots Members and others, some of us have lived and worked with these victims of tenor over the years. As a minister who knew what it was to fight for proper compensation for them, I will not accept the Minister's allegation from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman made a submission to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, I shall go back and look at it. I apologise if I inadvertently said that he did not, although it is interesting that no one else is standing up to say that they did.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Ingram: May I make this point?

Mr. Maginnis: I am standing up.

Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing up, but I am not giving way.

Mr. Maginnis: You do not want to hear the truth.

Mr. Ingram: As I said to the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, bullying and shouting might be his way forward, but it is not the way in which we try to address the issue.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I accept that their party has now put forward a group to deal with the issue, for which I am very grateful. It is important that I have points of contact with political parties. That was not the point that I was making. I did not say that there was not anything now, but that when there was a need for something to exist, it did not. Now we are beginning to address the issue. Northern Ireland Members should not accuse the Government of standing back and doing nothing when we have been trying to initiate movement.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) mentioned his engagement with FAIR. Of course, he is not the only Member who has dealings with that organisation. The Secretary of State has met FAIR twice. I have offered to meet representatives of it since, but they have declined because, as 1 understand it, they are keen to meet the Prime Minister. That is a matter for them. Meetings with representatives of FAIR have not taken place not because the Government have not been prepared to meet them. The Secretary of State has met the organisation twice, and my offer remains open.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) raised the question of references to the Government of Ireland. Of course, this is not the first time that the term "Government of Ireland" has been used in legislation. It was also used in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally opposed to that legislation, but none the less it was passed by this House. It is worthwhile putting on record the fact that the Irish Government now refer to the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in their equivalent legislation. Therefore we are using the terminology that has been agreed between the two sovereign Governments, and which does not conflict with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom while the majority of people wish it to be so.
4.30 pm
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. I did not anticipate such a long debate on clause stand part, but it is good that some hon. Members have now engaged in the process of debate; they may benefit from that engagement during the rest of the Bill's consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

THE COMMISSION

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 30, leave out from "effect" to end of line 34 and insert "on 30th September 1999".
The amendment deserves a fair amount of consideration in light of what the Under-Secretary said in his winding-up speech on Monday night. It is intended to time-limit the life of the Bill's provisions. He said on Monday night that the Government were not all that anxious to do that, but I believe that a time provision is embodied in the words that the amendment seeks to remove. The full subsection reads:

This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland, may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and an order under this subsection may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient.
Therefore the Government at least envisage that, at some point in time, they would by order annul the Bill, and it would be swept away.
It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, it could endure for years. It could sit on the statute book until people had forgotten its existence. It could be there for 100 years before a Secretary of State decided to sweep it away. I therefore believe that it should be time-limited, to a precise date.
On Monday night, the Under-Secretary said:
By way of intervention, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone"—
my honourable colleague, who has been speaking—
asked about time-limiting the Bill. The Government are not keen to close the door to the provision of information about 'The Disappeared' either from the IRA or any other organisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the IRA produced a list of nine names at the end of March. Some people—such as the individual who came to the Palace of Westminster today—have expressed dismay that their relatives' names were not on the list. The families of those who were not on the list hope that, in time, details of the location of their loved ones' remains will be provided. That is why we are not time-limiting the Bill."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999;Vol.331,c.80.]
If that is the Government's reason, it is a mighty poor one.
I believe that, by leaving the Bill in its present condition, we are leaving the door open to the IRA to twist and turn, and to seek publicity time after time. We are leaving the IRA absolutely free to manipulate—we know how good it is at manipulation—the whole


community. We should not give the WA that freedom of action. We need a clear cut-off date to stop its nonsense in its tracks. If members of the IRA really want to help, all the information that they have as to the remains of those nine people, and possibly others, can be provided by the end of September.
In my view, I have been more than generous. The Minister knows that I do not like the Bill. I believe that it is an abomination and should never have been produced because it undermines the rule of law. As everyone else in this place should be, I am familiar with the old saying, "Hard cases make bad law"; the Bill is a classic illustration of the truth of that. There are hard cases here. As I said on Monday night, people's emotions and religious practices are involved. In going down that road, we have made a grave error of judgment. If members of the IRA really want to help, they can.
We must realise that some of the people who carried out these atrocious crimes are probably dead and buried. They carried their secrets to the grave with them, so there is no chance whatever of recovering the remains of some of the people buried. In other cases, the people who went out and buried the bodies do not know where they are buried. They have forgotten. Many of the bodies were disposed of in the middle of the night. Some, we are told, were destroyed in the most horrific manner.
All those rumours circulate in Northern Ireland. It matters not which rumours are true and which are not. We can be certain that some bodies are not retrievable. It is likely that some are under road works or buried in the face of a tip of a road embankment and covered over the next day. No one can be sure where such a body may be; it could be anywhere along half a mile of road. We are not going to dig up a road in order to find it.
There could be bodies under major buildings. Some could be under the Waterfront hall, for all we know. There is no way of finding them. They could be under other building sites. They could be buried in open mountain, in bogs or in any one of a thousand places. The folk who put them there cannot recall where they put them in the dark of night and in their excitement and concern to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Someone carrying a mutilated body around the countryside does not want to run into a bunch of soldiers or policemen.
The people concerned got rid of the bodies as swiftly as they could. A body may have been buried in the bottom of an open grave in a cemetery somewhere, and a coffin placed on top of it the next day. No one knows where the bodies are, but representatives of the IRA, out of the goodness of their little murderous hearts, have kindly told the Government that they know where nine bodies are. The amendment is intended to ensure that the IRA gives up that information within a short time. It ties the IRA down, which is the one thing that that terrorist organisation does not want. It leaves the IRA no room to come back seeking concessions. If the Bill is left as it is, the IRA will be back for further concessions. Anyone who has anything to do with Northern Ireland knows that those people do not go away. They look for all the room that they can get, and there is far too much room left. Let us pin them into a corner and, if they are genuine, they will come forward with the information.
I fear that the IRA has no real intention of giving up the bodies. The whole thing is largely, if not wholly, a cruel deception. If the IRA is indeed involved in a cruel deception, the sooner we expose the nature of the people with whom we are dealing, the better. If all the known bodies can be produced, let us have them within the next few weeks. With regard to those that are irretrievable, as some probably are, we will have to be clear that no progress can be made.
At the very best, we shall recover only a small proportion of the bodies of those who were tortured, in some cases to death, by the IRA, brutally murdered and buried secretly. I have scant regard for murderers. I have scant regard for those who carried out those crimes. If we deal with them, we should be sharp and clear as to what we are about and why we are trying to do it. We should time-limit them firmly, and at the end of that time, the Bill should die. The sun should go down on it on 30 September at the latest. If I had my way, I would have made the time scale rather shorter, but, against my better judgment, I wanted to be generous.
That is the background to the amendment.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Bill is a little unusual in comparison with related Northern Ireland legislation in that there is no time limit on the life of the commission. The prevention of terrorism Act, for example, has to be renewed every year.
Would there be any benefit in prescribing the need to renew the commission's existence annually? The default position would then be that the commission would cease to exist and the terms of the Bill would be terminated, rather than the current situation in which the Bill will continue indefinitely unless some other measure comes before the House. I should be interested to hear the Government's reasoning as to why a renewal provision has not been included in the Bill. Perhaps they might want to consider such a provision.

Dr. Godman: I might have had some sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) if it had read "30 September 2000". This is not a helpful amendment, although I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. These murderous people—these highly skilful negotiators—may deliberately procrastinate and prevaricate in any discussions concerning the location of the remains of those people; nevertheless, I believe that the clause makes much better sense unamended.
On the other hand, I have a good deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said about assessing the work of the commission over six months or a year. The hon. Member for East Londonderry is right that such legislation should not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
I can assure the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that I expressed some reservations about the Bill on Second Reading, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has come up with a useful suggestion here—an assessment or review should be undertaken and we, as Members of this House, should be allowed to assess the effectiveness of and the progress made by the commissioners in this deeply difficult work. I say that because there have been some allegations that one or more of the bodies may be buried in Scotland.


It may take time to carry out effective searches in Scotland if those allegations have any substance, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take on board what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The cement that holds debates in this Chamber together is our acceptance of the good intentions and the good will of other Members, even if we doubt their judgment. We are in grave danger of attributing to the IRA the same sort of generosity of spirit that normally characterises our debates.
As the Minister has made clear, the Bill stems from a statement by the IRA that it thinks that it has found nine bodies and it would not mind, under certain circumstances, doing the decent thing. History is replete with examples of people of honesty and integrity being misled by terrorists. That is because those of us who are normal have such difficulty in getting our minds around the idea that there are people out there whose raison d'être is to terrorise. If they are willing to murder and maim and kill, telling the odd lie, even to the Press Association, is not a problem. It is our responsibility to be careful that we do not attribute more strength and importance to the potential lie and to the real lie than it warrants.
4.45 pm
Perhaps I may trade on my accent for a moment. What is extremely clear to me from Irish history is the inability of the English to get inside the minds of the Irish. Had they been better able to do so—and vice versa—the history of the past 800 years would be very different, and we probably would not be having this debate.
A promise has been made by people whose whole purpose in life was to terrorise the whole of Northern Ireland by whatever despicable means they could lay their hands on. They thought not a jot about killing, barbarism, multiple murder—whatever it was, they turned their hands to it with gusto and without a thought for the victims and the victims' families.
Now those people are saying that they might let us have nine bodies back, but they want us to jump through a number of hoops before that can be achieved. Fine. We are critically examining the Bill—the Government have thus far got their Bill without any Division in Committee. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was right to say that this open-ended commitment provides multiple opportunities for propaganda over the months and, for all we know, over the years ahead. The instinctive reaction to that comment in the House is, "Don't be silly, Brian, it couldn't be years. That would be too awful for the families of the victims to contemplate."
That is our decent way of thinking, but those people are terrorists, and they do not think the way we think. The Bill provides at least the opportunity for more and more propaganda. That is not in the Minister's best interests as he seeks to govern in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Barnes: If the Bill is to be an opportunity for propaganda by the IRA, it will have to do better than it did when it issued the initial statement to the Press Association, because it was a public relations disaster for the IRA. It referred to nine bodies, rather than the 14 that we think are buried, and it listed what it claimed were the crimes that it believed those people had committed. I am sure that that badly backfired on them in Northern Ireland

and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The IRA does not have public relations experts who are able to make use of this new opportunity.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: One of the nice things about the hon. Gentleman and I is that we go back a long way. When he was in opposition and I was in government we, by and large, saw eye to eye on security matters. I understand his point, but if he will forgive me for saying so, he is thinking about this matter as normal, decent people would. According to the Minister—I believe him, I am not questioning him—the IRA statement produced the Bill, which produced this debate, which will produce a debate in the Dail and which will produce open-ended legislation. That powerful message is ringing out around the world. Although I instinctively buy the hon. Gentleman's decent analysis, these people march to the beat of a different drum, and the House must understand that.
I have some sympathy with the amendment of the hon. Member for East Londonderry because I do not trust terrorists not to pocket what decent people offer them and then look for something more. I suspect—although I do not expect them to say so here—that the Government have already decided that the IRA does not like deadlines, because deadlines mean that what the IRA does or does not do can be measured and assessed in the context of a formal framework. As all hon. Members know, we are currently exploring that very issue in relation to the difficulties over decommissioning.
It might benefit the Government, acting on behalf of us all, to fix a date. If these people are serious, there is no advantage in stringing out the process. If it were done, 'twere well it were done quickly—and if it is not done quickly, we must ask why not, and what is coming next. A deadline would help to concentrate minds, and would enable the Government to say that they had acted in an humanitarian way on behalf of families, that there was benefit for the IRA, but that there was a line beyond which there was no reasonable excuse for going.
The Minister may say that we know of only nine graves, and that we should hold out an opportunity in regard to the other five. I could understand that argument if I were still involved in such issues, and I shall not vote for the amendment; but I shall ask the Minister to consider something else.

Dr. Godman: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be a deadline for a review of the legislation, and an assessment by the House of Commons, or does he think that a deadline such as that suggested by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) should operate?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was coming to that. First, I was going to ask the Minister to consider the arguments, and then return to them in another place.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that there should be a review. That is one option; another is for the Minister to set a deadline, and to add a clause allowing the Secretary of State to return to the House at some future date to reactivate the legislation if he or she was satisfied, for perfectly legitimate reasons, that some years later information had come to light that had not come to light now.
I am not trying to bind the Minister to a specific date, because there is an element of uncertainty; but he is being too open-ended, thus allowing for the possibility of


manipulation. The people with whom he is dealing are not like him, or like me: they are people who have spent their lives terrorising the community. I hope that while—presumably—rejecting the amendment, the Minister will tell us that the Government will at least consider the issues again, with a view to acting when the Bill is in another place.

Mr. Thompson: I support the amendment, and the imposition of a time limit. I understand that the IRA has announced that it has found, or knows the whereabouts of, these bodies, and is not revealing the whereabouts only because it fears that it might be liable to prosecution were it to do so—or that those who carried out the act would be liable to prosecution. The aim of the Bill is to prevent the prosecution of such people, and the prosecution of those who might be prosecuted as a result of evidence obtained from the bodies.
It seems to me that, if the people concerned know where the bodies are, once the Bill has been passed there is no reason why they cannot immediately say where the bodies are. Therefore, it will be only a short time before it can be discovered whether the IRA's statement is correct. After the bodies are then exhumed or found, there is no necessity for the Bill to continue. If, at a future date, terrorist organisations indicate that they have discovered other bodies, there will be no reason why the Government cannot bring a fresh Bill to the Commons, to be passed just as quickly as, no doubt, the current one will be.
Of course, I do not expect the Government to agree to that because although de jure, Northern Ireland is governed by the United Kingdom, there is joint authority. Almost all the major decisions that are taken in Northern Ireland have to be agreed and supported by the Republic of Ireland.
That is confirmed by the agreement that has been reached between the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland. It says:
The agreement shall continue in force until terminated by mutual agreement of the two Governments and shall thereafter cease to have effect in so far and to the extent necessary for meeting any liabilities or disposing in an orderly manner of any remaining assets of the commission.
The Bill says:
This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland
may appoint. The agreement means that termination has to be by mutual agreement. A member of a Government of a foreign state—the Republic of Ireland—has a veto over the affairs of this part of the United Kingdom, contrary to what is mentioned in the Bill. The Minister should perhaps address that point when he comes to the Dispatch Box. I certainly support the amendment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The debate has been useful. It has teased out some of the issues. The thrust of the debate is that there should be a time limit to concentrate minds.
I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has said. He mentioned that the clause relates to the Government of the Republic of Ireland as well. That might be one reason why the Minister is not necessarily able today to accede to the

request by the Conservative party spokesman. It is joint legislation, possibly because, among other reasons, some of the bodies will be found in the Republic itself.
The Minister is aware that I have been concerned about the matter for some time. For far too long, the terrorist has been playing ducks and drakes with us. Is it possible to know how much money has been spent already? After information was given, for example, in west Belfast that bodies were buried in such-and-such a place, for days, there was a search to try to find them and nothing was uncovered. I understand that it has been alleged that there are bodies in Paris. Has that been followed through?
It would be much better if the Minister, having listened to the debate, could assure us that the Government will take on board the points that that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has made some accurate observations, just as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has. Together, we might find some way forward that would impose a time limit. That could be done by review after so many months, but it will not be open ended.
There is an interesting side effect, in that, if anyone is to be brought to justice when a body is discovered and a murder is confirmed with evidence from another source, the longer the process is spun out, the less time the perpetrators will spend inside because, under an earlier agreement, as I understand it, they will have to be released by June next year.

5 pm

Mr. Ingram: The debate has centred on the usefulness of the legislation and how we can give it proper effect. Clearly, the Government had to consult the Irish Government on the parallel legislation going through the Dail and to consider the question of time limitation.
We are faced with the reality alluded to by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), that only nine of "The Disappeared" have been identified. There are certainly more, and it is interesting to note that two of those listed by the IRA were not on the RUC list. There is always a possibility of more names coming forward, and the legislation encourages people to realise that they can provide information, because it offers some limited protection. That helps the victims' families.
The Bill would be better without a defined time scale because people might not feel ready to admit their crimes by 30 September 1999. People take a bit of time to own up to terrible crimes. People may be prepared to say that they committed murder and know where the bodies are, but that may not happen within the suggested time scale. If we can encourage more co-operation, to help us to discover the names and locations of others who have disappeared, that would be helpful.
The core of our debate has been about the need to have an element of review in the legislation. It has been argued that, to ensure that it has an effect, the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise it again. In one sense, that is envisaged by the Government in any case, because clause 2(6) says that the two Governments will consider when it is appropriate to terminate the legislation.
I refer hon. Members to a document that has not yet been mentioned: the agreement signed on 27 April. It is a



document to the treaty between the two Governments that gives effect to the legislation. Article 3, paragraph 2(c), says that the commission will
report on its activities to both Governments no later than one year after its establishment, and annually thereafter.
We have already taken account of that. Normal practice, given that the commission is to present an annual report to the Government, would be for the Government to communicate that to the House by parliamentary written answer or by some other means. Scrutiny would be allowed in that way.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Minister and I both know that some reports to Government are more sensitive than others. Officials sometimes say that a report is too sensitive to put in the public domain, so at the very least there would be pressure to produce a safer version. If the Minister is making a commitment to publish the report in full and to make his best endeavours, on behalf of Government, to persuade the Leader of the House to have an annual debate on that report, he has moved some way towards what has been urged on him, and that would be helpful.

Mr. Ingram: I am not taking criticism of this Government for sanitising reports, although that may have been the practice in the past. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the report could include some very sensitive information that it might not be desirable to bring into the public domain in the interests of the victim. We can speculate what that might be, but I would not wish to try to define it because we might enter a debate about whether it would be a real possibility.
The agreement is an international treaty and contains a commitment for the commission to report to the Government. That is in the public domain. The Government will also be obliged to review the efficacy of the legislation—has it achieved the desired effect and, if so, should it be removed from the statute book—so it will not be retained indefinitely. The report will be considered by the Government and we will be obliged to report to the House. However, I would not wish to give a commitment to a full debate on the issue, because I cannot tell the business managers what to do. As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) knows, Ministers may want time on the Floor of the House, but it is not always easily obtained if other Departments have pressing demands for legislative time.
We are willing to be open about the issue and to try to observe the sensitivities of the victims, which is the overriding concern.

Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister give an assurance that one element in the report will be an assessment of whether the provisions in the Bill are still required?

Mr. Ingram: That is implicit anyway and would be part of the Government's thought process. We would have to take into account what the legislation had achieved. We hope that it achieves early identification—that is why I used the word "urgency" on Second Reading—of the location of the victims' remains. We hope that others will come forward with information on the same basis at an early stage.
I believe that within a year—probably within an even shorter time—we will have a good idea of whether the Bill has achieved those objectives. We might not have to come to the House with an annual report, because we might be able to tell the House earlier that we had achieved our objectives and the legislation was no longer required. I do not know whether the possibilities will turn into probabilities. The Bill is a new approach for the Government, as was highlighted on Second Reading. It is a departure from the normal process, like the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
While the commission—which will be the main channel for any information that people might wish to supply—could be disbanded, the remaining provisions need to stay to keep the protections in place in the criminal justice process. I hope that the provisions that facilitate the supply of information will not be required for very long.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I sympathise with what the Minister said about not always getting enough time on the Floor of the House, but Back Benchers get even less. However, I was concerned when he read out the provision that the agreement would be reviewed in a year's time. We are talking about the bodies of those who disappeared before April 1998. If we are really determined to help the relatives, should not the agreement be reviewed, and a report made to Parliament, every six months? That would keep the pressure on.
The Minister's example was of a person suffering from a guilt-stricken conscience who needed to relieve himself of that guilt. However, no legislation is required for that, and such a person would come forward in due course. If we are trying to maintain pressure on behalf of families who want to bury their loved ones decently and lay them to rest, we must keep up the pressure on the terrorists. I hope that the Minister will consider a requirement—even if it is not in the Bill—that the commission report every six months, rather than every year.

Mr. Ingram: Even if I were sympathetic to the proposition, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the agreement is an international treaty, for which the time scale of a year was considered a reasonable period. It was not envisaged that it would necessarily run for that period, but it gave us the opportunity to review it annually.
It would be very difficult to change the agreement. However, my approach would be to ensure that the maximum amount of information possible is placed in the public domain. We have to prove the effectiveness of the Bill in helping the victims, and thereby encourage people to come forward with information about other victims who have not been identified. Therefore, I do not want time scales to be stipulated in the way suggested: I do not think that my thought processes and my approach would be changed as a result.
In any event, hon. Members have the right to raise questions at any time to determine the Bill's effectiveness. Developments might take place within a week of the Bill being enacted that might invite such questions, and Ministers will be only too ready to respond. We must try to find the best way to communicate the information, rather than impose arbitrary time scales. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment, which I hope, given the assurances that I have given, will be withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I listened to what the Minister said with some interest. I was also interested in the time limits


suggested by the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has expressed his desire for a six-monthly report. I should not be unhappy with any of those proposals.
5.15 pm
The Government have made many concessions to the IRA over this matter. They have even allowed the rule of law and evidence to be overthrown—a serious abomination in my view. All the conditions set out by the IRA have been met, and every concession that it has sought has been agreed. What concessions has the IRA made? There has not been a single dotted i or crossed t, merely a few empty words.
When we are dealing with such people, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) should be listened to. He is a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, who grew up in Northern Ireland although he has been away from the Province for a long time. He set out the position clearly and adequately: we are dealing with people who do not think as ordinary, law-abiding men and women think. They are prepared to use violence and murder to further their ends, and lies fall lightly from their lips.
The Minister said that he believes that he is giving some concessions in an attempt to deal with the matter in a certain way. However, my problem with subsection (6) is that, far from having to be kept alive in a year—or five, 10 or 50 years—the provision has to be killed in that time. If the Government had followed the path set out by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I should have been content and the amendment probably would not have been tabled. If there had been a provision that an order—preferably one that could be prayed against—would be placed before the House so that the matter could be discussed, I should have been content and said that the Government really were prepared to put some further pressure on the IRA.
We let the IRA off the hook far too easily every time. The Minister must go further than he has so far. Subsection (6) is not really concerned with the review. It is concerned with keeping the measure alive until an indeterminate date in the future, when it can be killed. I want a provision that the Bill has to be renewed, after discussion in the House.
Questions to Ministers very often are met with non-answers. We need to be able to ask the Minister exactly what has happened, to secure facts and figures, and to determine whether the IRA is only playing with us or whether it is prepared to come up with the bones of the unfortunate people whom it murdered. Their bones are probably all that is now left of them.
Can the Minister go further than he has so far? Can he meet a point that enjoys cross-party support? It is evident from what has been said that a genuine concern exists that we are handing the matter to the IRA on a plate. The IRA does not have to give anything in return, and we are making it easy for it to play with us and practise what has

already been called a cruel deception. We should not do so: we should put pressure on the IRA. Can the Minister go any further?

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that we are making it easy for the IRA. The hon. Member does not have to take my word for that: he should read the closing Second Reading speeches by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Monday night. They said that there would be no easy publicity for the IRA, which did not win the publicity battle with the announcement that it made, nor with the details announced about the individuals involved.
I share the views expressed on Monday night that, once the inquest process has been conducted and the information about how people were murdered and their remains disposed of has emerged, the people responsible are unlikely to achieve a publicity coup. However, my opinion is less important than the impact that the Bill will have on the families. Will the Bill help those families? My answer to that question is yes: the approach has been agreed by the two Governments because of the jurisdiction interest that they share in the matter.
It is important to review the process after a reasonable period, but I do not accept the limit suggested for that period. Again, I ask the hon. Member for East Londonderry to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I listened to what the Minister said, but I am rather disappointed, as I believe that a fair point has been made about the review period. However, I shall read with great care what the Minister has said today. We shall not complete proceedings tonight on the Bill, as it must go to the House of Lords before returning to this House. In the light of that, I shall withdraw the amendment, although I hope to return to the matter if the Bill is not amended in accordance with what has been expressed today.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Bill has been subject to much discussion between the two Governments and within our Government. None of the major decisions was taken arbitrarily or capriciously. There were reasons for each of them in the minds of Ministers and of the officials who advised them. I am happy to accept that without the Minister's having to stress it.
I was somewhat surprised, however, by the Minister's response to the short debate that we have just concluded. He was not as convincing as he might have been, given the amount of private discussion that must have taken place before the Bill was produced. We are told that nine bodies have been found and that the remains can be identified. Presumably, when the Bill is enacted, that information will be handed over. The longer that it is delayed, the more suspicious people will become that what 1 said earlier may turn out to be true.
The Minister is right to say that there may be some doubt about some bodies that have not been found. What surprised me was his statement that some people may take time to bring themselves to the point of giving information to the commission. They have had 20 or 30 years to bring themselves to that point, and I am not sure of the added value of another three, six or 12 months.
The thrust of the Minister's argument was that to give extra time would encourage people. I hope the Committee will forgive me, but my mind went to Treasury matters. I will go home and check this, but my memory suggests that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the Inland Revenue, sends me a note about self-assessment on taxation, he does not say, "By the way, Brian, you can have as much time as you like to think about it, because, the longer you have, the more you may be inclined to send me some money." The note in fact names a certain date by which one must pay, and if one does not pay, consequences follow.
I was surprised by what the Minister said. Will he reflect further on this matter? I do not make a partisan point, and I have tried to show my understanding of the problems with which the Minister must wrestle. However, there is a mood in the Committee that, whether by review or bi-annual or annual debate, the process should not be open ended in the way that the Bill suggests that it might be.
I ask the Minister to reflect the spirit as well as the substance of this debate to the Secretary of State and other members of the Government. If he does, when the Bill arrives at the other place, that issue can be addressed. I have been a Minister and I appreciate that it is difficult spontaneously to reply to serious and on-going points raised in mid-debate. By the time that the Bill reaches the other place, the Government will have had time fully to consider those points, and I hope that we might then hear a slightly more definitive response from them.

Mr. William Ross: Anyone who reads the Bill will note that clause 2 deals with the commission. The commission is created as a body corporate, with all the resulting legal capacities. Clause 2(1)(b) will
confer on the Commission, in such cases, to such an extent and with such modifications as the order may specify, any of the privileges and immunities set out in … the International Organisations Act 1968".
What sort of modifications do the Government intend? What is the extent of the commission's powers?
What is meant by paragraph (c), which will
confer on members and servants of the Commission and members of their families who form part of their households, in such cases, to such extent and with such modifications as the order may specify, any of the privileges and immunities set out in Parts II, III and V of that Schedule"?
And what is meant by paragraph (d), which will
make provision about the waiver of privileges and immunities"?
We seem to be setting up a body with a wide range of privileges, immunities and powers. The Committee needs to be told more than the Bill tells us.
The final sentence of subsection (1) tells us that
'servants of the Commission' includes agents of, and persons carrying out work for or giving advice to, the Commission.
I can think of circumstances in which that provision would have very wide application. The Government must tell us what sort of agents they are considering. Who are they? How will they be chosen? How will they be remunerated? How will persons who carry out the commission's work be chosen, and how will they be paid? What will their duties be? The Bill contains a hedgehog of problems, and we have not been told all that we need to know.

The order referred to in subsection (1) will make different provisions for different cases, including different provisions for different persons. We seem to be moving towards making different provisions for each individual. That is most unusual. The Minister cannot expect simply to get away with doing that. If he cannot answer these points tonight, we shall have to come back to them on Report. We need to know the position.
Will the commission be an all-Ireland body? As I recall from the treaty, it could be comprised of as few as two persons, or could seat a good many more. I do not recall whether any upper limit was specified. The Committee would like to know the nature of the commission. Is it a cross-border body or an all-Ireland body? Where will it be based? What sort of people do we seek to serve on it? What premises and equipment are needed? Is it a big operation or a small one?
The Secretary of State will make various payments. Will the commission be funded by the United Kingdom Exchequer or by the Northern Ireland Office alone? Will it be jointly funded with the Irish Republic as it sits between the two Governments? Who pays? Those questions require answers.
I assume that the Government have in mind a date on which the Bill can come into effect. When is it? Is it the end of May, June, or July? If there is such a rush to enact the Bill, the Government must have made up their mind on that. When will the commissioners be appointed? When will they start work? Where will their offices be? All those details must have been sorted out, so may we have the answers to our questions?

Mr. Ingram: Let me deal first with the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on open-endedness. I thought that we had debated that. We have no guarantee that what we would like to happen will happen, but the strong probability is that it will, and quickly. I do not want to suggest the likely time scale, because that would build up the hopes of the families, which have been built up so many times before and dashed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about a recent extensive dig in west Belfast. I did not answer his point, but perhaps I should now. I do not have information on the cost, but if remains had been recovered, the cost would have been worth it for that family and for everyone in Northern Ireland because it would have been a release.
We do not know whether the process will happen, but the probability is that it will, and quickly. I do not want to set a time scale that would terminate it when we might be encouraging information to come forward. I also distinguished between the information that we now have to hand—the nine listed by the IRA—and the five to seven more that may fall in the same category but have not yet been owned up to by any group or individual. We hope that, if the first movement happens, it will encourage others to come forward.
On what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked, the order-making power is similar to that relating to decommissioning and protects those who carry out the actions on behalf of the two Governments. It can involve small, detailed issues relating to liability to income tax. It can relate to members of those persons'


families and give immunities against tort. I could go through the whole of part I of schedule 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968. It is possible that not all of that will be required. We do not envisage an international aspect to the commission. It is likely that there will be two commissioners because we have to act quickly. I announced on Monday the name of the commissioner that the British Government will put forward. I understand that the Irish Government are in the process of identifying theirs. The time scale is determined by getting the business through both Houses. On that basis, I cannot say with certainty when it will be activated because the measure has not yet been passed. We have been telling families, and saying publicly, that it will be in a few weeks.
As I said on Second Reading, I hope that, once the legislation is on the statute book, both here and in the Republic of Ireland, the information will emerge quickly. We are planning for that eventuality. We have also put in place a detailed approach to handling the matter on an inter-agency basis to bring into play all the Departments that may be involved, together with the RUC and the Churches. We anticipate that the Roman Catholic Church will have the main interest. Our detailed and comprehensive approach will mean that everyone is aware of what they have to do so that we can move immediately the information is given.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Minister has said more than once, both on Second Reading and tonight, that there is no guarantee that information will be forthcoming. Could he share with the Committee any indication that he or other Ministers have had from the IRA that, once the legislation is in place, it will move in a short time scale? He mentioned weeks.

Mr. Ingram: The British Government have had no contact with the IRA on this issue, which has been handled through an intermediary with the Irish Government. I do not want to divulge or discuss what has passed between two sovereign Governments. I have said that we expect this to happen early, but we are not speaking only to those in the Chamber; our words go elsewhere. I do not want to dash the hopes of families. That is why, when I meet them, I will have to say that we cannot control whether the information that they need will emerge. We hope that it will, which is why we have advanced legislation to encourage it. I do not want raise false hopes on their part, but such hopes are more realistic than any for the past 30 years.
If the organisation with the information decides not to bring it forward, I know what statements I will make. I am sure that they would be echoed in the Dail and internationally. It is bad enough that the murders were carried out, but to do that to families would be unforgivable. We are not negotiating in the Committee on this. These are sensitive issues. I am encouraged that we have taken the matter down this road. We hope that what we are trying to achieve will be achieved, but, ultimately, it is not in our hands.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I voted against Second Reading, not without some doubt because I recognised that the Bill is designed to address a sensitive and real concern, namely the anxiety of those who have lost friends and relatives to know where the latter have been buried. That is an understandable human emotion, with which I have the utmost sympathy.
Clause 3 lies at the heart of the Bill. If it is too wide or wrong, the Bill is wrong. Its effect is plain. It will prevent any evidence, other than evidence for the defence, being used or admitted in criminal proceedings resulting from the discovery of the remains or the disclosure of the information. We are giving an amnesty in respect of those who have committed murder in circumstances that are covered by the Bill.
The matter goes perhaps wider than hon. Members fully appreciate. Under clause 3, where a person makes a disclosure that leads to the finding of remains where there is evidence, the evidence, whether from the disclosure or from the remains, is not admissible against the person who made the disclosure. That is clear, but it is also true that the evidence, whether it takes the form of a disclosure or of the remains, is not admissible in other criminal proceedings against third parties who have not themselves been privy to the disclosure. In fact, it goes further than that. The evidence involved in the disclosure or in the remains is not admissible in respect of offences that might be shown not to be related to the discovery of the particular remains. Therefore, if there was evidence arising from the fact of the disclosure or its circumstances, or from the remains, that showed that some third party had committed some other murder—not itself the subject of the disclosure—such evidence would not be admissible either.
I am bound to say that I am very uneasy about the principle of this amnesty—that is what it is—and, furthermore, about the scope of what is being proposed. Of course, I understand that, in the context of the agreement in Northern Ireland, it is highly desirable to make progress. I understand, too, the natural anxiety on the part of friends and relatives of those people who were murdered to know where they were buried—I began with that point. At the same time, we are entitled to assert a public interest and I am far from clear that, in principle, such a public interest should be granted by the Committee. The question is not so much whether that is right in principle—we could hold different views as to that—but whether it is right at present. I wonder whether the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, especially the IRA, have done enough to justify the granting of an amnesty of this kind—even assuming that an amnesty should be allowed in principle, if the agreement were making progress. I do not think that that is the case.
I am someone who has supported the Northern Ireland agreement; I have defended the release of prisoners—sometimes against the views of members of my Front Bench; I have accepted that decommissioning was not an explicit condition precedent of the agreement and I have defended that position. However, the point has now been


reached when the House of Commons must stand back and ask how much further progress it is proper to make without substantial movement by the IRA or associated terrorist organisations. No explosives or weapons have been delivered. More than 50 per cent. of the prisoners have been released, but we have seen nothing more substantial than a partial cessation of violence. The time has come to say, "No more", until many more positive steps are taken by the IRA. Until there is substantial decommissioning and a total cessation of violence in Northern Ireland on the part of the terrorist organisations, especially the IRA, we should not push forward the peace process. In particular, we should not push forward the amnesty contained in the measure before us today.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the clause offers an amnesty to killers. A friend in Northern Ireland suggested to me that that was an unintentional consequence of the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present earlier when I said that our overriding concern must be to meet and honour our obligations to the families of the victims.
In my brief intervention in this clause stand part debate, I have one question for my hon. Friend the Minister. Allegations have been made that there may be a body in Scotland. If such a body were uncovered there, would the measure be appropriate in relation to Scots law?

The Chairman: I call Mr. John McFall. I apologise to the Minister; I thought that he wanted to speak. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was slightly at deep fine leg and I did not quite see him. I call Sir Brian Mawhinney.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before the Minister addresses the points that have been raised during the debate, will he explain in some detail what is meant by subsection (2) of the clause? If I understand the measure correctly, it states that
relevant information provided to the Commission
cannot be used in evidence against an individual, but that such information can be used in the defence of an individual. I am not at all clear how it is that the defence of an individual comes to know that the commission has relevant information in the first place. Furthermore, I note in subsection (1)(b) that
any evidence obtained (directly or indirectly)"—
presumably by the person to whom the body or the remains are handed over, as provided for in clause 4—cannot be used against an individual. However, the evidence can be used in defence of an individual. I do not understand how the defence is supposed to know how to obtain that information, or even how it could know what information exists.
Clause 4, which we shall debate in due course, is the part of the Bill that tells everyone, in legal language, that the only thing that can be done in carrying out tests on bodies is to identify the body. One can only identify who the person was so that the remains can be linked up with the family. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, why does he think that it is not acceptable for information to be used against someone, but that the playing field is not level because it is acceptable for the information to be used in defence? Secondly, and much more

intriguingly, how is the defence supposed to know that such information exists, bearing in mind especially that clause 4 states what the examination of bodies cannot do? What can the defence lay its hands on? For example, is it able to obtain information that may come to light under tests covered by clause 4, even though that information cannot be used more generally?

Mr. Hogg: I invite my right hon. Friend to put a different question to the Minister. What is the position if someone who has previously been convicted of a murder, but asserts that he or she is not guilty of that murder, believes that the forensic evidence on the body might prove his or her innocence? That person is not an accused, because he or she has already been convicted. Can that person use the now-to-be-discovered evidence to prove his or her innocence under a subsequent review or on appeal?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I could not even put the question as well as my right hon. and learned Friend, much less put it better, so I will allow his question to come, as it were, from my mouth.
I have one final question. Given that the tests described in the measure are permitted to be used for the defence of individuals, does that mean that an individual's defence team can require certain tests to be carried out on remains, on the ground that the information obtained might be useful for the defence, even though clause 4 suggests that such tests would be prohibited in the first place because they go beyond the scope of the legislation? I hope that the Minister will able to answer those questions in detail and with clarity.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): I shall try as best I can to answer the points that have been made. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will recall that the Conservative Government passed the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. He was a member of that Government and did not vote against the measure. Section 4 of that Act contained an amnesty. The Minister of State at the time, Sir John Wheeler, said that any evidence or information adduced as a result of information given to the commission could not be used in criminal proceedings and that, if there was any information or evidence not gained in that way, that could be used. It is not an easy pill to swallow, but it is for those reasons that we have provided that those who come to the commission with information will not be disadvantaged as a result of coming forward with that information; if we did not, the information would not be forthcoming.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that point, and it is perfectly fair as far as it goes, but I hope that the Minister will forgive me for making a further observation. If real progress were being made within the peace progress, I would understand that we have to swallow pills that are profoundly disagreeable to swallow. However, if the time comes when one party—in this case, the IRA—has not made what Parliament believes is a sufficient contribution to the peace process by decommissioning, why should Parliament agree to swallow the pill?

Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman is also a learned Gentleman and he is cleverly trying to take me


away from the issues contained in the clause, but I shall not budge. However, on the matter of the bitter pill, it is the fervent hope of both the Government and Parliament that progress has been made, and we legislate in that fervent hope. As I said on Second Reading, at the end of the day, we are doing this for the sake of the families.
The clause relates to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that the provision is included to ensure that information is forthcoming. The information given to the commission and evidence obtained as a result will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. That is central to the principle that no one should be disadvantaged by the giving of information to the commission.
However, subsection (2) ensures that information given to the commission can be adduced when it would be of assistance to a defendant in criminal proceedings. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked about that provision, which must be seen in the context of ensuring that no one is disadvantaged. An example might be a case in which an individual has confessed to a crime, but his defence is that he was not in fact responsible for it: he might have confessed to carrying out the killing in a certain way, but the evidence is such that the victim could not have died in that way. It would be wrong to prevent an individual from adducing those facts.
The right hon. Gentleman asks how a defence lawyer can know those facts, and that same question crossed my mind when I first read the Bill. The answer is that the commission will receive information and it will then pass that information to the police—the RUC or the Garda. If the police are in possession of information supplied to them by the commission, or of evidence found as a result of a search that would assist the defendant, they are under a duty to make that information or evidence known to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP would inform the defence, who would then be able to request sight of the relevant material.

Mr. Hogg: May I put the following point, which relates to clauses 3 and 4, to the Minister? He is, in effect, saying that the prosecution authorities might have in their possession information that they are under a duty to disclose to the defence. However, a case might arise in which the defendant believes that forensic examination of, say, a bullet found in the body of the deceased would prove that it could not have been fired from the gun in the possession of the accused. As I read the legislation as it stands, there is no power on the part of the defendant to insist—whether by court order or otherwise—that the bullet be made the subject of forensic examination. Therefore, my question to the Minister is whether we should, either at this juncture or subsequently, amend the Bill so that there is a power to enable the defendant who believes that forensic evidence would be forthcoming from the bullet to apply to the court for the bullet to be tested.

Mr. McFall: No one has been charged with or made answerable for the crimes to which the Bill relates. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that these issues cause us to stray into

clause 4, which deals with forensic testing, and I shall deal with those matters when we debate clause 4. In brief, the coroner has responsibilities in that respect and evidence that has come to light through forensic testing will not be shared, but will remain the responsibility of the coroner. I shall elaborate on that later.

Mr. William Ross: I tried to table one or two amendments on this part of the Bill, but unfortunately they fell outside the rules. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has made me look again at the clause, and I think that he is perfectly correct when he draws attention to the fact that it goes far wider than a layman like myself would think on reading it.
The clause states that certain information and evidence
shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings".
It would be one thing if that statement continued with the words "related to that death", but it does not and so covers any criminal proceedings whatsoever. The Government must go away, examine that clause extremely carefully and try to narrow it to cover only criminal proceedings relating to the death in question.

Mr. McFall: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision has been trawled over. The same principles were enshrined in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, for the reason that information had to be forthcoming. The belief is sincerely held that, if information is to be forthcoming, we have to formulate the legislation in a certain way, and clause 3 reflects that. The clause is simple: subsection (1)(a) relates to evidence that is provided, subsection (1)(b) to evidence that comes to light and subsection (2) states that that evidence will be inadmissible. It is all based on the principle that information must be forthcoming.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for the start that he has made on answering the questions that I put to him. If I understand him correctly, the answer to my question of how the defence gets to know of the information is that the commission has to tell the police, the police have to tell the DPP and the DPP has to make the information available to the defendant. May I ask the Minister a straightforward, uncomplicated question? Which line or clause in the Bill requires the commission to give information to the police; and is that an unfettered requirement or a fettered one? I do not see such a provision in the Bill, but, if it is absolutely central to the Minister's answer to my question, he is starting to lose me and, I suspect, the rest of the Committee.

Mr. McFall: The last thing we want is what should be a serious debate turning into a smart-aleck contest or an academic exercise. Clause 2 relates to the commission and the appointment of commissioners and the explanatory notes refer to provision being made for the commission. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that, if information is provided to the commission, it will be passed on.

6 pm

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The smart-aleck remark was untypically ungracious of the Minister. The Bill sets up a commission—we are agreed on that. The Minister has told

 
me that the commission must give the information to the police. That is how clause 3(2) will work. I am asking a simple question; I am not interested in the explanatory notes because they are not before the Committee. I am not trying to be a smart aleck. We are establishing a commission that must give information to the police if clause 3(2) is to work. I want to know which part of the Bill requires the commission to give that information to the police. That is a perfectly straightforward question, which follows from the Minister's comments. I am not trying to be a smart aleck or to debate the issue; I am simply requesting some information.

Mr. McFall: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I said that we did not want to stray into smart-aleck comments, but I did not mean to implicate the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 3(1)(a) refers to any relevant information provided to the commission. The explanatory notes point out that the clause contains the first key protection for relevant information provided to the commission. It provides that information shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings and extends the bar on admissibility to evidence that comes to light as a result of that information being provided. The commission receives the information, which it then passes on.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that point. Having followed all the correct procedures, the commission will receive the information—I have no difficulty with that. However, the Committee has been told that, if clause 3(2) is to work and the defence is to be able to use the commission's information, the commission has to give the information to the police, who then have to give it to the DPP, who then has to provide it to the defence. I do not see the "has to" bit in the legislation. I understand that that is the mechanism, but I ask the Minister whether he has legislated to that effect.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I appeal to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) to keep his interventions brief. They are far too long.

Mr. McFall: Let us take it to the nth degree. The right hon. Gentleman cannot find the "has to" aspect of the legislation, but I urge him to appreciate the intent of the legislation. We are seeking to establish a commission whose function is to facilitate the location of remains. We have given a commitment that that information will be given to the police, who have a general duty to pass it on if necessary. That is the Bill's intention and the Government have given that commitment at the Dispatch Box. It would be very silly to establish a commission but not require the commissioner to pass on any information when the intention of the Bill is to gather information and locate the bodies.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but he has not yet answered the questions fully. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that. We agree that, as there will be an amnesty, the accused must have access to information that provides a defence. However, there is a problem in relating clause 3(2) to clause 4.

The forensic evidence found with the remains might provide a defence, but the accused will not know that unless he can cause what is found to be examined. Clause 4 prohibits that. Therefore, will the Minister contemplate giving the accused the right to apply to the court to disapply the prohibition in clause 4 regarding examination so as to enable the accused to use forensic evidence in his defence as clause 3(2) of the Bill provides?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the Minister replies, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to keep their interventions brief.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I do not disagree in any way with your ruling; I simply seek your guidance. Do we have the right to rise again at this stage in the Committee's considerations?

The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. and learned Member may be called to speak again. I would prefer it if he sought to catch my eye.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. McFall: I have forgotten the question. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the passage of information. There is a general duty to pass information about the commission of a crime to the police under the Criminal Law Act 1967, and that duty will also apply to the commissioners.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about clauses 3 and 4. If I do not answer his question fully now, I shall return to it when we consider clause 4. He asked whether the accused may seek forensic testing in his defence. There is no ban on testing during the inquest, which may determine how, when and where a person died. As we said on Second Reading, that process will be on the public record. The coroner will hear evidence in public and the defence will know if relevant information is disclosed at an inquest. The inquest verdict and forensic testing may play an essential role in the process and, like all inquest verdicts, they will be a matter of public record. We made that very clear on Second Reading.
The clause has three relatively simple intentions, and I hope that I have answered the questions about it.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press this point. There is always a risk that one will press a point that is not of real substance, but I believe that this is a substantial issue. In any event, the Minister can seek the views of his advisers. As I have said, I oppose the amnesty. However, we are dealing with the Bill before us, which provides for an amnesty. I am aware that the clause will be passed, so we must try to make it as effective as possible.
Let us assume that clause 3(2) will be part of the Bill as enacted. I agree that, if we are to proceed in this way, the accused must be able to use the evidence discovered as a result of disclosure of the remains in order to further his defence. However, that information may include forensic material that is discovered from, within or with the remains—for example, a bullet. We might then be able to identify the gun from which that bullet was fired.
The problem is that clause 4, which relates inevitably to clause 3(2), prohibits the examination of the remains. The commission may discover material and inform the


prosecution authorities who, in due course, will inform the defence. However, unless some provision enables the defence—or the prosecution, for that matter—to subject the bullet, for example, to forensic examination, no one will know whether it will advance the cause of the defence. I suggest that the accused who wants to use the material in the circumstances postulated by clause 3(2) should have the power to apply to the court for an order allowing the remains or what is found with them to be examined in circumstances otherwise prohibited by clause 4 in order to form a view on whether the material is helpful to the defence and, if so, to use it.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My distaste for clause 3 is not as great as that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but, as I have already demonstrated, I am not much impressed by the clause. I take his view that, if we are to have this clause, we ought at least to get it right so that it works.
The Minister has been advised that there is a general law that covers the commission. I am not entirely clear about the consequences that flow from that. First, that body is, by definition, different from others because it is being set up by statute under an international agreement. It would be helpful if the Minister agreed to place in the Library legal advice that demonstrated that such a body, set up out of an international agreement relating to two jurisdictions, not just that of the United Kingdom, is covered by UK law. The Minister told us that it is covered by UK law, but I am not sure that, prima facie, it necessarily is, so it would be helpful to have access to the legal advice on that.
I do not want to take the Minister through all of his earlier reply, but he said that the commission was required to notify the police and then expanded that by saying that the police were to be notified that a crime had been committed. I hope that the commission is required to notify the police of such a crime. Bearing in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said and what I said earlier about clause 4, it is not clear from the Bill what the commission will tell the police about the fact that a crime has been committed.
I follow the legal requirement on the police to give that information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then has to pass it on to the defence in the case. That seems to be normal procedure. However, what will the DPP tell the defence? He cannot tell them about any forensic testing, because that is prohibited under clause 4. My right hon. and learned Friend has suggested that the Bill should make it clear that the defence could request, through the court, certain tests to be taken, but if he is right—I think that he is, because he has forgotten more about the law than I have ever known—the Bill's logic contains a lacuna.
When the Minister responds to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, will he explain in more detail what evidence the commission is required to give the police that might be helpful to the defendant? The answer to that question is, to state it in generous terms, simply not clear from the Bill.

Mr. McFall: I shall try my best to respond to those points. First, the right hon. Member for North-West

Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) referred to legal advice; he does not accept at face value what the Bill says about that. I shall do my best to ensure that information is placed in the Library.
There was an intensity to the right hon. Gentleman's question about evidence given to the commission. The commission is being established to locate the remains of bodies, and any information given to the commissioners through facilitators will be passed on to the police. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, who has a distinguished public service record, to serve as a commissioner. It is not for me to second-guess every piece of information that he will receive. The right hon. Gentleman should be assured that such an eminent individual will use the sensitive information that he receives in the proper way when passing it on to the Garda and the police. The Bill simply establishes that flow of information.

Mr. Thompson: On what grounds will the commission supply information to the police? Clause 5 states:
No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person".
Surely that prevents the commission from giving information to the police.
Furthermore, the Minister mentioned the appointment of one commissioner. Will there be only one commissioner, or will another be appointed, from the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the proceedings, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned that there would be two commissioners: one, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, will be from Northern Ireland and one, who has still to be announced, will be from the Republic of Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the information that the commissioner will have. We are only passing the legislation at the moment, so I cannot give him an insight into that.

Mr. Thompson: I am asking where in the legislation it states that it is incumbent on the commission to supply any information that it has to the police, because clause 5 says:
No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person
except in special circumstances, but it does not mention the police.

Mr. McFall: It is implicit in the Bill that the information provided to the commissioners has been provided to ensure the location of remains. That would be relevant information—we have given a definition of that term—that would be passed on by the commissioners. The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give him any insight into the nature of the information.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked whether a bullet could be subject to forensic testing and whether a defendant could request forensic testing as part of his defence. The answer is no. Defendants cannot have their own forensic tests carried out, as clause 4 states. I am aware that I am


in danger, Mr. Martin, of jumping to clause 4 or clause 5, and I realise that we are dealing with clause 3, but I have been asked questions about clause 4, so I ask you to bear with me.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McFall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me the opportunity to answer his question? Defendants cannot carry out their own forensic tests, but they can use the results of tests conducted for the inquest. That may be helpful to their defence and, under clause 3(2), they can adduce that information.

Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister not realise that the ability of the accused to use that information under clause 3(2) may be nugatory unless the accused has the right to require testing, because the material that is obtained in the course of the inquest may be wholly different from the evidence that the defence may want to call if it is to benefit from the provision in clause 3(2)? I therefore suggest to the Minister that he reflect on the clause and work out whether, to make clause 3(2) effective, it would be right to enable the accused to apply to the court for an appropriate order allowing that testing.

Mr. McFall: Again, we are getting on to clause 4. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads clause 4(1), he will find the six conditions in paragraphs (a) to (f) under which forensic testing is not allowed by anyone except, as subsection (2) states, the coroner. The coroner will make that information public. The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is no, because forensic testing on the part of the defendant is ruled out in clause 4(1)(a) to (f).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

RESTRICTIONS ON FORENSIC TESTING

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out from 'person' to end.
On the face of it, the amendment looks very simple, as all amendments do. The Committee can get the flavour of it by looking at subsection (2), which states:
Subsection (1) does not prohibit a test or procedure the purpose of which is to discover information in relation to an item where the information is sought for the purpose of establishing, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a deceased person, or how, when and where he died.
When I read the clause, I must confess that I thought that it would be a good idea to take all of it out of the Bill. Unfortunately, amendment No. 14 did not find favour. Amendment No. 2—which was selected presumably because it was the only one of my amendments to clause 4 which fell within order—draws attention to the fact that subsection (2) seems to contradict earlier parts of the clause.
Subsection (1) says:
the Commission shall not carry out, or cause or permit anyone else to carry out, a test or procedure in relation to the item the purpose of which is—
(a) to discover information about anything done to any person".

Surely, finding out, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a person and how, when and where he died flies straight in the face of such a provision. There seems to be a contradiction, which must be resolved.
The clause allows tests and procedures to discover how, when and where a person died. Once one has discovered where the person died, one might have some idea who was responsible for his death or where he had been tortured. If bones were broken or fingers cut off, which is not unlikely, one would certainly have some understanding of the suffering before the murder. Yet we are told that we are not supposed to know such things. How is the contradiction to be resolved?
The other interesting matter is that subsection (1) is all about discovering what has happened to the individual:
to discover who has been in contact with, or near to, any person or item;
to discover where any person or item was at any time (including the conditions under which he or it was kept)",
which would include where the deceased was imprisoned, perhaps for some time. The subsection prohibits tests
to discover when any person or item was in contract with, or near to, a particular person",
which I would have thought would be very useful knowledge if one were to try to prosecute someone for the murder of an important individual. The subsection prohibits tests to discover
when he or it was in a particular place or kept under particular conditions"—
in other words, what sort of imprisonment the individual suffered. A test or procedure cannot be carried out
to discover when or where any item was made".
We know that terrorist organisations manufacture certain items for use in their terrorist campaigns, and something like that could be of great use to the prosecution. We are also prohibited from carrying out tests
to discover the composition of any item.
I have a problem: I want the Government to tell me how they will square knowledge of what is done to a person—the torture or murder—with the scope of subsection ((2). Clearly, the only tests that could be in keeping with subsection (1)(a) are those that will identify the victim. Any other information could be used to prosecute. The Government have clearly decided to avoid that. How on earth are they to resolve that conundrum?
It is clear to anyone who reads the Bill that the Government have done some deal with the IRA to avoid its members being brought before courts and charged with torture and murder. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary gives his assent to that remark. The Bill was a consequence of discussions with the IRA, which surfaced fully only on 29 March.
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who asked about the deal with the IRA and the guarantee for bodies, the Under-Secretary said:
However, we have the evidence received from the families and others who are willing us to act and the statement made by the IRA on 29 March, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Irish Government have responded. We are legislating on the basis of that information in the sincere hope that the agony of the families will end."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999;Vol.331,c.77.]
Clearly, the Government are saying, "Yes, we believe that there is a hard case and therefore we must make the law fit the line," to which, as I have already said, I object.
There was a deal, and contact, either directly or at arm's length, was made with the IRA. The IRA gave certain guarantees, which it has not as yet fulfilled—in this or any other piece of legislation that has been drafted to placate it. The Bill flows directly from the commitments given.
I am also somewhat intrigued by the fact that there is no clause to limit the Bill's powers.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that we are considering not the Bill in its entirety, just his amendment.

Mr. Ross: If you had just held your hand for a moment, Mr. Martin, you would have realised that I will be staying completely in order. I was simply referring to the absence of a clause that we normally find in Bills that deal with Northern Ireland or a specific region of the United Kingdom. Normally, there is a clause stating that the Bill extends only to Scotland, Northern Ireland or England and Wales. No such clause appears in this Bill and, therefore, this is not a Northern Ireland Bill, but a United Kingdom Bill. Different laws govern inquests throughout the United Kingdom; they are not, as far as I am aware, wholly alike.
I therefore wonder how a clause will operate when, for example, a body is found in Scotland. Allegations were made at one stage that bodies may have been buried in France. We know that the IRA was active on the continent. There could be a body buried in Germany. Suppose some poor fellow is buried in Germany or France, will this proposed law apply there? Does it apply throughout the United Kingdom? Are the Home Secretary and the Secretary of state for Scotland aboard? Are the new Scottish and Welsh governing bodies aboard? There is a very serious question to be asked on the Bill's extent.
If individuals are found elsewhere, would the authorities that normally investigate a murder—it may have been committed in their territory or a body may have been transported there illegally—such as the police and coroners be free to do so? Such questions must be explored. As the Minister said, the Bill's provisions are implicit. I await answers that defend them.

Dr. Godman: I do not believe that the amendment is very appropriate. Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I am not a lawyer, Scottish or English, but I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to confirm that subsection (1) does not in any way restrict the comprehensiveness of a post-mortem or an inquest held in any of our jurisdictions.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is right in one regard. If we are talking about the United Kingdom, we must talk in terms of its different legal systems. Scottish procedures are different from those that pertain in England. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will forgive me, but an allegation was made that a body or a couple of bodies might have been buried outwith Northern Ireland—perhaps in Scotland. I received an assurance from my hon. Friend that every means would be sought to co-operate with the Scottish authorities. I simply ask him to place on the record that no attempt will be made to restrict in any way the holding

of an inquest, or an examination carried out by a pathologist. I believe that subsection (1) confirms that that will be the case.

Mr. Öpik: It seems to me that the result of the amendment, with the consequent prohibition on testing, would be that any inquest would be kept open due to lack of evidence. I look to the Minister for guidance on that, but, having listened to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has said, I believe that the amendment would lead to an outcome rather different from that which he intends.

Mr. McFall: I shall focus on amendment No. 2, and then perhaps any other points can be taken up in the stand part debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked about the situation in Scotland. That is linked to the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised when he asked what would happen if a body was found in Germany. If a body is found in Scotland or England, clause 4 will apply, but if it is found in Germany, it will not apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde can see that clause 4(1) provides that there would be restrictions on the actions of people other than the coroner at the inquest, but that subsection (2) contains a qualification to or exemption from that restriction at the inquest.
I believe that at Second Reading we made things reasonably clear when we said that there would be a full examination as to how, when and where the person died and that it would be a public matter, so there would be no inhibition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will accept that point.
The amendment would mean that forensic testing, as part of the inquest process, would have to stop at identifying the person. That is a limitation that the hon. Member for East Londonderry is introducing. In other words, he is negating the effect of subsection (2). As a result, tests to establish how the person died and where that happened would not be possible. I do not consider that that would be in the interests of the families, as a coroner has an important role to play with the families by providing reassurance. I know from meetings and contacts that I have had with several coroners in Northern Ireland that the emphasis is placed on the family concerned. I therefore believe that the amendment would place a limitation on their work, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
I can assure the hon. Member for East Londonderry that the Bill does nothing to affect a normal inquest process. As I said, that is the aim of subsection (2). If the amendment were made, the circumstances in which a person died would not be discovered by forensic testing, and that would be unacceptable for the families. I assume that the hon. Member for East Londonderry is seeking an assurance from the Government that the Bill does nothing to prevent an inquest from taking its usual course. I can unequivocally provide him with that assurance, if that is what he wants.

Mr. William Ross: In light of the Minister's assurance, and in the hope that we may return to the subject, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to return to the matter that I have already ventilated, but the Minister did say that the points that I raised on clause 3 stand part might be discussed properly—and perhaps even more relevantly—on clause 4 stand part, so I will trouble the Committee on the matter.
We must return to clause 3. As the Committee knows, I am—broadly speaking—against the amnesty, for that is what the Bill provides. We have already had this exchange, but whether it is an amnesty or not, clause 3(2) provides for a relaxation in its application. I agree with that purpose. It is obviously right that an accused person should be able to use forensic material discovered from the remains, or associated with them, for the purpose of his or her defence. So far, so good.
The problem is that there is nothing in the Bill that enables an accused person to obtain from a court an order—

Mr. McFall: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister is agreeing with me. There is nothing in the Bill that enables an accused person to obtain from the court an order which enables that accused person to have the relevant material subjected to forensic testing. Indeed, clause 4 prohibits that very act.
As a result, an accused person who believes that, within the remains or associated with the remains, there is forensic evidence that will avail the defence, will be unable to subject the relevant material to forensic testing. That being so, the right conferred by clause 3(2) is nugatory. We have given people a right that they cannot enforce. That is dotty.
Unless I have misunderstood the position, the proper way to proceed is to enlarge the disapplying provision contained in clause 4(2), because at present the ability to carry out tests is confined to the coroner within the inquest. We could very well enlarge subsection (2) so that a test may be carried out on the authority of a court, making an order on the application of an accused person.
I am not asking the Minister to give an undertaking here and now—of course he will not do so—but I am asking him to reflect on my suggestion with a view to tabling amendments in another place if he agrees with me.
The matter actually goes a little further than that which I have suggested. I believe that the logic of what I have suggested with regard to an accused person is impeccable, but another situation might arise. A person who is an appellant, or who is seeking a review of a case, may believe that the forensic evidence associated with the remains would enable him or her to get a previous conviction quashed, either by a reference to the Court of Appeal or by some form of review. I should like to think that the Minister would agree to enable an appellant—and therefore, as the case is concluded, probably not an accused person for the purposes of the Bill—to go to a court, probably the Court of Appeal, for an order allowing the forensic material to be the subject of testing.
That is my suggestion. I do not expect the Minister to say yea or nay now. That would be an absurd proposition, as the point is complicated. However, I hope and expect that he will reflect on the matter and, if he sees substance in my argument, that he will move an amendment on another occasion and probably in another place.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to seek further clarification. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was concerned about protection for the accused. I am looking at the other side of the matter.
We have been told that the measure does not provide an amnesty. Can the Minister give us guidance? If the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have information that a certain person may have been involved in the death of a body that has been discovered, and in the course of the inquest evidence is produced that ties the event to a particular time and place, can the prosecution use that evidence, or does the measure make it impossible for information that comes from an inquest, not from forensic testing by a prosecuting authority, to be used in prosecutions?

Mr. McFall: Substantive points have been made in the debate, and I shall try to answer them.
I understand the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I shall try to clarify the Government's intent in the Bill. We are dealing with relevant information provided to a commissioner. The information will be passed to the police or Garda, and an inquest will take place. We have given protection for information that comes forward. Only the coroner will be able to test how, where and when a person died and put that on the public record. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I shall reflect on it, but I see an illogicality in his proposition concerning the Bill's intent.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about information forthcoming. With regard to criminal admissibility, once the information that the coroner has is on the public record as a result of an inquest, it can be used by anyone.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that information. If there was no criminal prosecution by the Crown, would the evidence be available for a civil case?

Mr. McFall: Yes. The information would be a matter of public record. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
There have been some comments on the coroner's role, and it might be helpful if I described it. The coroner has powers derived from the Coroners (Northern Ireland) Act 1959. He has a duty to hold an inquest if a body found in his jurisdiction has died in suspicious circumstances. That information will have been provided by the relevant police authorities, who inform the coroner where the body is. The coroner directs the police to take possession of the body and orders a post-mortem.
Paragraphs (a) to (f) in clause 4(1) provide that no one else—for example, a state pathologist—goes into the detail of how, when and where a person died. It is for the coroner to do that. The state pathologist carries out the post-mortem and sends the report to the coroner,


who arranges for a hearing. The coroner can summon anyone as a witness, other than a person alleged to have caused a death.
The coroner's duty is to make a finding concerning the identity of the body and how, when and where the person died. To that end, he calls the police, the pathologist and family members. The coroner's role vis-a-vis the family is obviously sensitive. Anyone who is likely to be able to give evidence that bears on who the person was and where and when he or she died can be called.
The proceedings are entirely a matter for the coroner. He has complete control. His court is a civil court. The ordinary rules of procedure apply regarding evidence given orally or by lay document. The post-mortem report will usually be read out in open court and questions put to the pathologist. After the hearing of all the evidence, the coroner will make a finding as to the identity of the body and when, where and how the person died. That will be made public.
The question was asked whether information made public after an inquest could be used in criminal proceedings. That can be done only by the defence, not by the prosecution.
Like clause 3, clause 4 is an essential element of the Bill to ensure that information is forthcoming to the commission. The construction of the clause is similar to the equivalent provision in the decommissioning legislation, as I mentioned. Subsection (2) provides that forensic testing for the purpose of the inquest is allowed. The inquest tests may determine the identity of the deceased, and how, when and where he or she died. Subsection (1) provides that testing for other purposes is not allowed. The other purposes are listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). Subsection (3) allows an item to be tested to determine whether it can be safely removed.

Mr. Hogg: This will be my final intervention on the point, as I do not seem to have persuaded the Minister as much as I would like. We must focus a little more closely on what is suggested.
Our purpose in the Bill—much as I disagree with most of it—is to enable an accused person to defend himself or herself by relying on the forensic evidence. However, his or her ability to do that may depend on an ability to test the forensic evidence. That ability is restricted by clause 4, subject to the inquest procedure. The inquest procedure is contained in subsection (2).
The purpose of an inquest, at least in the present context, is to identify the deceased person and how, when and where he or she died. It is not the purpose of the inquest to identify the killer or to examine the weapon—in this case, the bullet—used. Under the subsection (2) powers, the coroner will not test, for example, the bullet to identify the gun from which it came, but that precise piece of information may be critical to a defendant—an accused—or to an appellant, and it will be denied to him or her because of the provisions of clause 4.
I am trying to persuade the Government that if it is right to give an accused person the ability to rely on the forensic material, it must be right to give to the accused

person a right to apply to the court to have the material tested; otherwise it is nugatory. I am asking the Minister to understand that and to reflect on it.

Mr. McFall: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has made the same point nine or 10 times. It usually takes me two or three times to understand. I have had seven extra opportunities, and I really do understand. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the issue from our point of view. He wants to extend the forensic testing. He wants to make it open season not just for the defence, but for the prosecution.
The fact of the matter is as laid down in the Bill—there are defined limits to that information, for very good reasons. I come back to the point that relevant information provided to the commissioner is passed on for the simple purpose of locating a body. I well understand the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reflect on it, but I think that he understands where I am coming from on that issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister of State my view on the relationship of subsection (2) to subsection (1). I am running the risk of sounding heavy handed in respect of the commissioners, but the provision of information to members of a victim's family must be treated with extreme sensitivity. Subsection (2) states:
Subsection (1) does not prohibit the disclosure to members of a victim's family of—
 (a) the fact that relevant information has been provided to the Commission".
I have no quarrel with that, but it adds:
(b) the place where, according to the information, the victim's remains may be found.
A number of Northern Ireland Members have made the point that the IRA is more than capable of supplying disinformation in such matters. The subsection refers to where
the victim's remains may be found.
It is important that the disclosure of such information is handled with sensitivity so that the hopes of a victim's family are not dashed because the remains of their loved one are not found where the information claimed that they were located.
The families have a right to such information—that goes without saying—but this whole question must be handled with extreme sensitivity in case the IRA gets up to its vicious games of disinformation. I make that plea to my right hon. Friend on the issue of the location of victims' remains.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, because I raised it earlier. The Minister said that the money will have been well spent if


a body is found, but the harsh reality is that money could be wasted. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that a relative's expectations that a victim's body has been found may be raised, and such information should not be released until we are sure of a body's location.

Dr. Godman: My concern, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that the interests of the families are not damaged. To my mind, the question of cost—speaking as a Back Bencher, not as a Minister—is inappropriate, if not irrelevant, in such cases. I agree with him that, if the family can be contacted only when the evidence is definitive concerning the location of their loved one—

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he may wish to consider a point arising from that. Clause 5 states:
No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person",
but we should project that proviso to a situation in which information is provided on which action is taken, only to discover that it is inaccurate. Are we not to be told, as members of the public, that the very families for whom the Bill is designed—so we are told—are being held to ransom by the tendering of false information?

Dr. Godman: That is a fair comment. Given the terrible suffering of the families over many years, they may be willing to gamble, but let me give the hon. Gentleman an example.
I spoke to a young woman whose father was abducted in Crossmaglen. His car was found south of the border. That young woman told me that neither she nor anyone else in her family has any idea of where her father's body may lie. My suggestion may be entirely inappropriate, but might not it be better to contact the family once the body has been found? That may be difficult—after a few years, the identity of a body may require verification, perhaps through personal possessions such as a wedding ring or a wallet found on it—but, in my view, the family could best be approached when verification was sought through personal possessions found on or near to a body.
I know that my right hon. Friend will take my views on board as a genuine attempt to help the families in such circumstances. We must avoid, at all times, the raising of their expectations only for them to be dashed by the authorities themselves.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to explore with the Minister the exact extent of the prohibition on the disclosure of information. I go back to the point on which I have already addressed the Committee—on eight or nine occasions, according to the Under-Secretary. He was exaggerating a trifle, but no matter.
If we are to have such a procedure, we must safeguard the right of the accused. In the early part of the debate, the Under-Secretary told my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that the commission would pass information on to the police, or to the prosecution authorities, who would communicate that information to the defence, if they believed that it was of value to the defence.
I want to be absolutely certain that nothing in clause 5 prohibits the process of communication between the commission, the prosecution and the police, and

subsequently to an accused person or to an accused person's lawyers. I am perfectly well aware that the phrase "relevant information" is narrowly defined in clause 1(3). On one interpretation of clause 5, there is nothing to prevent the commission from communicating information to the prosecution authorities—whether they be the police or the prosecution services—and thereafter to the defence, if that material is helpful to the defence.
That is a perfectly proper interpretation of clause 5, but there is another: the commission cannot communicate information to the police or to the prosecution services other than for the purpose of facilitating the location of the remains. I suspect that that is the wrong interpretation, but we need the Minister's guidance. We want the commission to be able to give more information than that.
7 pm
>
If the Under-Secretary's assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is to have any value, the commission must be able to communicate to the prosecution authorities, and then to the defence, material that may be helpful to the defence in asserting the defence. We must be sure that nothing in clause 5 prohibits that. I do not think that there is anything, but we need a specific assurance on that point.

Mr.Öpik: I am surprised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern, because the Bill is clear cut. I am not sure why he is concerned because, having read the Bill, I am not. I have tried to understand his concern, as he has expressed it repeatedly. The Bill seems pretty self-explanatory, but then I am not a lawyer.
I slightly take issue with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). The important point is that, if I were in the position of the families of "The Disappeared", I would want to know that information had been disclosed which could lead to the discovery of a body, even if eventually that hope were dashed. I would feel robbed of that hope if I were not given that information. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point, and it is difficult to empathise with the families given the stress that they are under, but I think that in their position I would ask to be kept informed, even if it turned out that the information was wrong. To that extent, I think that this provision is reasonable.

Mr. William Ross: The clause provides quite a lot of protection for the murderers, in that it prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the persons who are providing the information. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is so. It also protects those who may have killed, as evidence that may come forward by association with the informant will also not be available. It does not tell us who is to recover the body. It provides that members of the victim's family can be informed of the approximate site of the buried remains. Will the servants of the commission or the police carry out the recovery? We should be told.

Mr. Ingram: We do not know the extent or the nature of the information that will be given to the commission; that is in the hands of others. We are not in receipt of that information; we have not seen its colour or shape, even at this stage. The commission will take receipt of the information, and its main function will be to facilitate the


location of the remains. It does not have the means to recover the remains, so it will pass the information to the appropriate authority, which will be the RUC or the Garda Siochana.
The Garda Siochana may not have the necessary expertise. Specialist excavation equipment may be required, or the use of Army personnel or specialist technicians. We can only speculate on that. That is why the Bill refers to agents, and gives everyone protection. The commission will receive information and pass it to the appropriate authority. The RUC or the Garda Siochana will recover the remains if they have the resources. If they have to call in special expertise, they will do so because the objective is to recover the remains.
Running parallel with that is the need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, to handle the matter sensitively. We have been closely involved with the families to try to understand what they want, which is early information. It would be wholly wrong if information were leaked and the media were ruthless—although I hesitate to use that word. Their interest is in the dissemination of news, not the sensitivities of the families. If they got hold of the information, they would make it headline news immediately, perhaps before the families received it. The commission must be quick to give the families the information that it has to hand, to tell them what has happened and to keep them up to speed with all the processes.
The people who will undertake the excavation will also have a responsibility. I can speak only for the RUC, but I know that the Garda Siochana will also operate sensitively and will be aware of the need to assist the families through the process.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will come to the point that I made shortly, so I shall not trouble him with that, but I want to touch on the point that he is making now. For understandable reasons, there is a prohibition on the giving of information that may distress the families. I do not see in the Bill any method for enforcing that prohibition. Disclosure, which is not authorised, but is indeed prohibited, under clause 5, is not an offence. What would happen if it became apparent that a member of the commission or, more likely, a third party communicated to the press information that should not be communicated by reason of the prohibition? There is no means in the Bill to take action against that person.

Mr. Ingram: That was referred to on Second Reading. I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not participate in our examination of that possibility. If it was an agent of the Crown—a police officer or a member of the Ministry of Defence—who revealed the information and we were aware of that, that person would be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen often proudly tell us that they have received leak from Government sources. That is stealing, and if they have received a leak from someone in the Northern Ireland Office or the RUC, that person is in breach of regulations. If the person's identity were made known to the Government, or to the Chief Constable if it was an RUC officer, we would be obliged to act under the disciplinary code.
We cannot prevent every eventuality. We hope that those who act in the name of the Governments understand the sensitive nature of the information. The prime purpose of the legislation is to protect the interests of the families, and to give then comfort and uccour. If information given by the IRA is used to exploit the situation and to make the RUC or the Garda Siochana look foolish, that would come to light very quickly. What publicity benefit would the IRA gain from that?
We could spend a long time trying to think of various eventualities. I have not done so, because I do not know what information will be provided. We may not be given any more information than that the remains are at site X. The commission then has an obligation to disclose it. The minute the information is passed to the RUC, if it discovers that it is relevant to a case in which there is a defence interest, under existing legislation it is obliged to make it available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to go through the process that we have discussed at length. That is the chain through which the information will be made available.

Dr. Godman: My intervention is prompted by the thought that, ideally, it would be better for the authorities to tell a family that they had disinterred a body that they believed to be the remains of their son, father or brother and that they required some form of identification, such as dental records.
A few years ago, two friends of mine were swept off a trawler in the Arctic and were drowned. Their bodies were eventually dragged up by a Russian trawler. The authorities told my friends' widows, "We believe that we now have the bodies of your husbands, but we require certain identification—for example, dental records." Once that identification was forthcoming, the bodies were returned to the United Kingdom, and the two men were given Christian burials.
Surely it would be best for the authorities to approach a family saying, "We have found a body, and we genuinely believe, on the basis of information that we have received, that it is the body of your loved one".

Mr. Ingram: We should be careful not to present ourselves as experts. None of us have really been through the process. I understand my hon. Friend's analogy, but the way in which he says that this should happen could be seen as prescriptive. The commission has already been given an onerous task, as have those working alongside it to help families. I referred earlier to the need for an inter-agency approach. All the necessary agencies are now in place: whatever information is required—social work support, access to dental records or access to DNA testing—all the Northern Ireland departments are there to provide it, and to deal with any eventuality.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister confirm that the commission can give relatives only two pieces of information? It can say that it has received information, but not what that information is; and it can say where a body is located.

Mr. Ingram: In one sense, that is strictly true. Restrictions are placed on the commission. We must be careful about discussing such matters on the Floor of the House, because families will obviously want to know the


precise position in relation to certain aspects of the Bill. We do not know what questions those families will raise, and we do not know what demands will be placed on the commission, but the clause restricts the commission by preventing it from giving evidence that would work against other clauses in the Bill. That is specific; and then there is all the handling not just of the commission, but of those involved in working on the site and those—representatives of either the Garda Siochana or the RUC—who are keeping the families closely involved in the process.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is accurate. The prohibition clause refers to "relevant information", which is defined in clause 1(3) as
information as to the whereabouts of the remains of a victim of violence".
That is what is prohibited. I should have thought that it would be open to the commission to give the family of the deceased information about how the deceased died, because that is not "relevant information" as narrowly defined in clause 1(3). It is possible, however, that the phrase "No relevant information", for the purposes of clause 5, has a meaning different from that defined in clause 1(3). My substantive question is this: can the commission give information to the police and the prosecution authorities on, for instance, the manner of death?

Mr. Ingram: I do not know how the commission would have information about the manner of a person's death unless information of that nature was given to it. It would not establish the criteria.
I may have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope he will forgive me if I have—but he referred to the commission in the context of the manner of death, and the where and the when. That information will emerge from the inquest, which is public, and is not the commission's responsibility. It will emerge later, once the remains have been found. It will then become the property of the family of the deceased, and of anyone else who has a similar interest. All that the commission can impart to families is that it has information, and the place where the victim's remains may be found.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde implied, the sensitivity of the matter means that we should not be too prescriptive or explore the situation too deeply. To do so would place a terrible onus on the commission. It would not want to close the door on families, but I do not think that they should be given more information. There are words of comfort that those who are part of the overall operation may think it helpful to offer, but any provision would have to be very narrow and restrictive. I cannot begin to speculate on what such a provision could be. We must be restrictive about the information that the commission can impart so that our provision does not conflict with other elements of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: What the Minister has said so far has a good deal of substance, but will he address the point that I put to him earlier? If the commission had information about, for instance, the manner of death which might help the defence, would it have the right to communicate that

information to the prosecution authorities and, through those authorities, to the accused and the lawyers of the accused? That is the argument that the Under-Secretary presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).

Mr. Ingram: The commission is different from the RUC. The RUC would know that a court case was in progress, and that relevant information was involved. That is a duty placed on the RUC in this part of the criminal justice process. The knowledge base, as it were, would not necessarily reside with the commission. There might be awareness, in which case the commission would be covered by other legislation. It would then have to examine what it was entitled to do and what it was restricted in doing, and—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—would have to comply with all the law of the land, not just the legislation with which it was having to deal in that instance.
I do not envisage circumstances in which the commission would necessarily know that a court case was in progress in the High Court, and the information would be relevant. The RUC would quickly become aware of the information, because it would be passed to it so that it could take the necessary action to recover the remains. Let us not discuss whether that would happen within minutes, within hours or within days, but it would happen very quickly. As I said earlier, we must bear in mind the possibility of leaks to the media. The commission must get the whole operation under way quickly, and the victims' families must be notified and advised as soon as possible.
I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I will read what he said; I do not know whether he said it eight, nine or 10 times, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we would consider it carefully, and that we would return to it if that proved necessary. However, we do not believe that the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman force us to do so.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister agree that, because of the severe limitations, the families are likely to be very disappointed at how little information they receive? Does that not go completely contrary to the recent Macpherson report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, where the police were severely criticised because they did not feed as much information as possible to the relatives?

Mr. Ingram: I think that we are chewing over the matter somewhat. The hon. Gentleman is not having to deal with the families—please do not say that the families might be disappointed. They find themselves in traumatic circumstances. Some of them have been subjected to false hopes before.
I have tried to explain the sensitive way in which the matter will be handled. I have much confidence in those who are acting in the interests of the Governments in this case to deal with all that. The professionalism of those who have to deal with the matter has stood the test of time and should not be subjected to the implied criticism that the families will be disappointed. I ask the hon. Gentleman please not to discourage the families any more than is necessary.

Mr. Thompson: It is a matter not of questioning anyone's competence, but of the law and of the legal


requirement as to how much information the families can receive. That is the issue, not whether the people involved are professionals.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has not tried to amend the legislation to increase the amount of information given. Perhaps that is because he accepts the arguments. We now have an argument for argument's sake. The clause specifically deals with the legalities, sensitivities and practicalities of the matter. I have set out how we are handling it, taking an inter-agency approach to try to ensure that we have worked out every possible eventuality, so that, from minute one, we are ready to act to help the families. I have every confidence that that will happen. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

POWERS OF ENTRY

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 43, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "premises" includes any place.'.
Clause 6 gives powers to resident magistrates and justices of the peace in Great Britain to issue warrants authorising the police to enter and search premises where there is reason to believe that the remains of a victim might be found. However, the Bill does not contain a definition of "premises". There is a risk that, without a definition, "premises" might be interpreted narrowly as covering only buildings and land with buildings of some type on it.
It is possible, however, that searches for the remains of victims may have to take place in fields that, while forming part of a farm, are separate from the land on which the farm buildings are situated. Therefore, we want to ensure that the power in clause 6 to grant a warrant in respect of any "premises" is exercisable in respect of land on which there are no structures. The amendment therefore defines "premises" widely, so as to include any place.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister just clarify something? He is obviously right to want to enlarge the meaning of "premises". Would the word "place" include, for example, a ship and an agricultural hopper that is used for the storage of grain? Those are not buildings. They are not land. A ship is a structure. A hopper is a structure on land. Is the word "place" apt to include everything?

Mr. Ingram: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I am right to introduce the amendment. It is nice to get my score card marked up in that way. My understanding and the advice that I have is that the term—it is a legalistic term—does mean any place; we have broadened the definition to mean any place.
Knowing lawyers, they may want to chew over all that further. For the sake of argument, they may try to define that further, but I think that we have covered everything.
I hope that it does not become a matter of dispute because the measure is about trying to ensure that no inhibitions are placed on the recovery of the remains, wherever they may be.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

FUNERAL EXPENSES

'.—The Secretary of State shall pay the cost of the funeral of any person which arises from the work of the Commission.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr.Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Compensation for families of victims—
'.—Families of persons whose remains are located through the work of the Commission shall be eligible for compensation under existing schemes operated by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Öpik: The debate is slightly different from the earlier one, which seemed to be about technical details. The new clauses arise primarily from discussions with my noble Friend Lord Redesdale, who has taken time to approach families of "The Disappeared", to assess their current circumstances and how the Bill might impact on them.
Under existing legislation, it is clear that victims and families of victims can claim compensation for up to three years after what we may call "the incident"; that is, not the date of death, but the date of the incident. It is an important distinction.
The families of these victims have been unable to claim compensation because they do not have even the remains of their relatives. Essentially, their deaths are still technically unconfirmed as no bodies have been recovered.
It is fair to argue that the families of those victims have suffered rather more than many families in the troubles, and that is saying something. As well as suffering the loss of their relatives, they have been unable to bury them and to grieve for them properly. As I said during Second Reading, they have literally been robbed of the opportunity to grieve, to put the issue behind them and to move forward.
In that context, payments towards the cost of funerals will not bring back the victims of those terrible atrocities, or alleviate any of the pain and anguish that the families have suffered in the past 20 years, but they will go a long way towards giving the families some peace of mind that their relatives will be given a decent and proper burial, without the worry of the financial implications, which can be substantial.
I tabled new clause 2 to enable families of "The Disappeared" to access the money that they will be denied due to the three-year rule. I have some indication that, from a legal perspective, there may be significant difficulties in providing that compensation. If that is the


case, I will be grateful for clarification from the Minister. Will he describe as best he can the restrictions and obstacles to enabling the compensation to be available?
Even if that is the case, I will ask the Government to explore the options. It seems that the families of the victims are effectively being punished twice: on account of what happened to their family member; and on account of the limitations that are technically built into the compensation programme, which deny them the opportunity of compensation because more than three years have passed since the disappearance.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments about new clause 2. I hope that he can give some good news and at the very least explain, or give some reassurance, that the Government take the question of compensation seriously.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the conflict with other legislation? Those who have disposed of and murdered these people have often claimed that it was because they had breached terrorist regulations. As I understand it, there is legislation in place that says that no compensation is payable to those who have been party to terrorism. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? Is that one reason why he has tabled the new clause?

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up that matter, because I suspect that it is one of the complications involved in setting up a compensation programme. That is why I am asking the Minister to comment. I do not have a legal background, and I have not been able to determine the specific issues of compensation. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some clarification.
I hope that the Government will go along with the context of new clause l, as it would be tremendously helpful to the families of "The Disappeared" not to have to worry about the big financial burden that a funeral entails. The families have suffered far too much already, and an act of good will, whereby the Government agree to bear the cost of the funerals, would show both compassion and empathy.

Dr. Godman: I support the new clauses in principle. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues. Despite what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the alleged terrorist involvement of some of the victims, I would have thought that most of them were entirely innocent. I am thinking about two of the families that I met. I would like confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Minister that some help would be given to families on low incomes.
I think that the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services would be amenable to applications for assistance, but would that be confined to those on the state pension or income support? The plea of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) should be given a sympathetic hearing.
I think that access to compensation should be as straightforward as possible and there should not be the usual lengthy legal delays.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. I do not think that every victim

was involved in terrorism, but I am aware that claims have been made by the perpetrators that some of them were. I have been involved over the years in fighting on behalf of victims and I know what the law says and how some people have been victimised again by the law.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is to be complimented on his assiduous campaigning on behalf of the families. The last people whose claims I would believe about some of the victims' involvement in terrorism are members of the IRA. I know that one 20-year-old victim who was alleged to be involved had a mental age of about eight or 10, according to his doctors, so I would treat such claims with scepticism.
Compensation should not be delayed and we should certainly consider helping victims' families, and especially those on low incomes, with funeral expenses.

Mr. William Ross: The new clauses are interesting and I hope that the Government will take them on board and try to be helpful. Whether we like it or not, the Compensation Agency is bound by the law and has no discretion whatever. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) drew attention to the existing schemes. I am not sure when the first of the victims disappeared. We have no way of knowing the date of the death caused by the earliest murder—I do not like the term killing, because these were cold-blooded murders, and we should say so bluntly.
Ministers will be aware that the compensation legislation was updated and greatly improved in 1978. I remember clearly that the relevant order was one of the few to be withdrawn and rewritten, not least because Mr. Enoch Powell was a prominent member of the party at the time and was deeply involved in the arguments on the subject. A scheme was developed that, despite the demerits that it is said to have, has many merits and has been very useful to many people over the years.
My only significant reservation about the compensation scheme is that people get a lump sum. Sometimes it is a large sum that they are unable to handle and they dissipate it and are left with nothing. Members of the armed forces and the police get most of their compensation in the form of a pension scheme, which is index-linked and gives them a continuing income over a long period. That is a much better system and perhaps it should have been considered for others. Perhaps we should consider that principle right across the law on compensation for injuries.
I am concerned about the time scale. If the individuals were killed at an early stage, it would be possible to argue that their fate became known only at a late stage, within the time frame that would allow a claim for compensation for murder to be made, but even in those favourable circumstances, that claim might have to be made under the pre-1978 legislation, which was not very good. A long time has elapsed, but some of those individuals might well have been the breadwinners for relatives who are now elderly. There is a real problem.
We will still be left with a difficulty in regard to those whose bodies are not recovered. I do not know what on earth the Government can do about it if we start paying compensation in respect of those whose bodies are recovered, but have to refuse it in respect of those whose bodies are not. The remains may be completely irretrievable, as we have discussed.
It appears that most—perhaps all—of the folk who were murdered by the IRA did not have any involvement in terrorism, but some of them may have had, and if that emerges, the relatives will be refused compensation. The same would apply if people had been involved in working for the security forces. Will any cognisance be taken of that? The security forces' records should surely contain that information, if nothing else.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has raised an interesting point, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Ingram: I have much sympathy with the idea of helping with funeral costs. Let me explain how we have handled the matter. I explained earlier about the inter-agency approach and the need to consider all the ways in which we can deal with the sensitivities and ensure maximum protection and support for the families. We have been actively considering how to provide support after the bodies are returned to the families for burial.
I am in a difficulty, because I have an understanding that the matter will be resolved, but I am not in a position to say exactly how. We may be in a better position to say precisely how the issue has been resolved, to the satisfaction of everyone in the House and of the families, when the Bill is in another place. That deals specifically with the funeral and burial costs, and I am hopeful that the issue will be resolved shortly.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) showed a good knowledge of the compensation system, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). They know the complexities of the legislation, although it has been refined and improved over the years, in 1988 and 1991, to give more flexibility to the payment of compensation in lump sums. Because it was likely that hon. Members would raise the issue, I sought authoritative legal advice, which was that the families of persons whose remains were recovered would not fall within the compensation scheme because of the three-year limit. I could go into further detail, but that would be turgid and I ask hon. Members to accept my assurances on the issue. Having said that, the legal advice is just one opinion and others could reach a different conclusion. However, I believe that the advice is robust.
We must consider whether to put specific provision for compensation into the Bill, as new clause 2 seeks to do. However, that would affect the underlying principles of the compensation scheme, and we must remember that many people, going back some years, still feel dissatisfied with the compensation that they received. For that reason, we asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to undertake a detailed examination of the compensation scheme and its fitness for its purpose. The review should be ready soon. I had hoped that it would be available even sooner, but Sir Kenneth and those advising him have been given an extension of time because of the complexities of the scheme. However, I do not wish to raise false hopes that the review will produce answers to all the problems with the compensation scheme. At least we have shown a willingness to get to grips with the issue and examine ways to deal with it.
I concluded that to introduce a one-off approach in the Bill could pre-empt Sir Kenneth's report and might not be the best way to deal with the issue. It could also be

unfair to the large community of victims who already feel aggrieved. We have to be careful with such sensitivities. We are considering the issue of compensation, but new clause 2 would not be helpful. The families of "The Disappeared" victims have experienced unique circumstances, but the prime motive behind the Bill is the recovery of the remains so that the families can give their loved ones proper burials. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Öpik: I am satisfied with that reply. The Minister has responded positively to the important question of funeral expenses and I accept his response in good faith. After hearing the Minister's comments and the contributions from other hon. Members, I am even more convinced that the compensation scheme is very complicated. I still hope that the Government will take serious steps—I believe that the Minister said that they would—to explore how to ensure that the particular nature of the suffering of the families of the disappeared victims does not mean that they are excluded from the compensation scheme.
The Minister is right not to wish to make a complicated system more so with piecemeal solutions, and I hope that a strategic solution to the whole issue can be found, notwithstanding the hope that the situation will be resolved by new peace in Northern Ireland. If the Minister can devise a solution for the funeral expenses problem, he will make a big statement about the Government's genuine commitment to try to ease the suffering of the families. The Minister has given me the assurances that I was seeking and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a detailed examination of the Bill today. Only a few amendments were tabled, but we had a wide-ranging debate from which we have all learned something. We also had a useful debate on Second Reading.
The Government's position is clear: we want to end the suffering of the families of "The Disappeared". We fully recognise that some right hon. and hon. Members, who are equally concerned about the families, have worries about the protections in the Bill. Some hon. Members are also concerned about the Bill in case no information comes forward and we are duped by those who have promised to provide information. However, we examined that point in considerable detail and discussed at whose door the blame would lie.
Those hon. Members who are critical of the Bill see it as a risk not worth taking. In answering the points raised by the amendments that were tabled, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had to strike a delicate balance in reaching judgments on the totality of the Bill. We have tried to supply the facilities and the mechanisms to ensure that if any information is provided, we can act on it.
The issue is complex and sets new precedents. On Second Reading, we accepted that—as with the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—the Bill does not sit comfortably alongside other aspects of the upholding of the normal rule of law. However, the circumstances are unique and we are taking a risk to try to alleviate the suffering of the families that has gone on for far too long.
I also want to point out the Bill's limitations. In many ways it is wide ranging, but it has its limiting aspects. It does not provide an amnesty, or immunity from prosecution. Others may use those words, but that is not what the Bill is about. The protections in the Bill are specific and are triggered only when relevant information is given to the commission. The protections do not set a precedent, but the Bill provides the families with perhaps their only chance of burying their loved ones with dignity. The Government believe that the opportunity for the families to enjoy that basic human right is of immeasurable value when compared with accepting the measures set out in the Bill.
There is a risk, of course, that those with the information will decide not to come forward. I cannot guarantee that they will come forward, as has been said repeatedly. However, once the mechanism for providing information is in place, the responsibility for choosing to ignore it will be theirs, and theirs alone. That would be a heavy responsibility. If they ignore the mechanism that the Bill puts in place, they will show that they have no humanity and no concern for the families or for the society that they purport to be helping to move to a peaceful environment.
By passing the Bill this evening, the House has provided an opportunity to bring this painful episode to a close. I hope that the House of Lords will give it a passage as speedy and sympathetic—and a scrutiny as close—as it received in the Chamber today. That will help people to understand the measure, and its importance.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Conservative Members have never hidden the fact that we find it obnoxious and outrageous that there should ever be a need for a Bill such as this. It is a permanent blot on Irish history that grieving relatives have not been able to bury their dead properly because of the actions of terrorists. The fact that the IRA and other terrorist groups did not have the common humanity to tell the authorities—even anonymously—where the bodies were gives us an insight into their mindset. That information would have put to rest the minds of those grieving relatives.
The balance is a difficult one to strike, but I agree with the Minister that the views and sensitivities of the victims' relatives are paramount, and more important than legislation which, in other circumstance, no hon. Member would want to be passed in this House.
In addition, I echo and understand what the Minister said about his inability to guarantee that the terrorist organisations that committed these vile murders will come forward with the appropriate information to the commission. I deeply agree with him that they should: it will be yet another disgrace if they do not. I hope, for the sake of the victims' relatives—whose agonies none of us can begin to imagine—that at last their grief can come to an end.
In conclusion, I hope that the paramilitaries and their political associates will not use the Bill as a bargaining ploy to be turned to their political advantage in talks, now or in the future. I do not think that the House or the people of Northern Ireland would ever forgive them if they did. I hope that the evidence and information are brought forward in a proper and correct way.

Mr. Roger Stott: First, I apologise to the House for my absence during most of the debate, but my party's Whips saw fit to put me on several Committees considering statutory instruments today, so I have been like a yo-yo, in and out of the Chamber in the fulfilment of my other functions.
As the House will know, for a long time I was Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. I spent much time there, and still do. While I was the Opposition spokesman on these matters, both terrorist organisations were involved in a full-scale war, with each other and with the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not claim any monopoly on feeling deeply about the pain and suffering of families who had lost loved ones. My feelings were shared by many other Labour Members, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). All hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have expressed their genuine and specific points of view and concerns.
From time to time, I recall two appalling atrocities in Northern Ireland. The first took place in a fish shop in the Shankill road, and the second at the Rising Sun bar at Graysteel. I visited both scenes—unsung, and without the presence of television cameras—to talk to the victims and their relatives. At Graysteel, my arrival was a moment of special poignancy. It was a cold November day, with the wind blowing over the Foyle. The bar was boarded up, and I wanted to pay my personal respects to the families who had lost loved ones in that appalling Hallowe'en night atrocity.
A gentleman came around the corner, and asked if I was all right. When I said that I was fine, and that I had come to pay my respects, he invited me into the bar for a cup of tea. That gentleman owned the bar, and was present when the terrorists came in and shot their victims in cold blood. They murdered that man's 80-year-old father in front of him.
There is a finality about the fate of the victims of atrocities such as that, in that their loved ones and families can give them a decent, Christian burial. The families will never forget, and their love for their relatives will continue for their rest of their lives, but there is a finality when burials are done properly.
However, the people who are the subject of the Bill do not know where their loved ones lie. They have not known that for perhaps a quarter of a century. If the Bill gives us an opportunity to try to find the remains of people who suffered at the hands of terrorism, and to restore those remains to their families so that they can be given a decent, Christian burial, I have no problems in supporting it tonight.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I hesitate to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), as in one sense he looked back to the past, in which he had some involvement.


I began by being very conscious of what the inability to bury the dead means to people. I was a young lad during the war and we got word after Calais that that was the last place that my uncle was seen. My aunt, who had five children, lived through the war hoping that he would return, but my uncle's name is on the Dunkirk memorial. So I have no difficulty in understanding the concerns of the bereaved, nor their desire to bury their loved ones.
From my experience in Northern Ireland, I also know what it means to bury a lovely young woman, who could be identified only by her wedding ring. She was one of the victims of the atrocity at the Le Mon hotel. I could continue, but tonight we are seeking to achieve something.
The Government have been pushed into doing something that the terrorists, if they had been treading the path of peace, would have done long since. We should make it abundantly plain that the culprits at the bar of justice are the perpetrators of crimes. It is time that the whole community put more pressure on them to reveal the places where bodies have been buried.
As an Ulster Scot—what our American cousins call Scotch-Irish—I was interested to hear the Minister dismiss the amount of money being spent on vain searches, because I thought that he looked after the bawbees and that the House was responsible for financial expenditure. We have had both terrorist war and economic war, and I am convinced that further attempts will be made to isolate and disturb the economy by giving false information. I hope that I am wrong, but, if false information is given, we must indict those who offer it.
I have every sympathy with those who believe that they are entitled to compensation. In my experience, genuine victims—innocent people not involved in any way—have suffered most. I think of a family in my congregation who were put out of their home. The Housing Executive rehoused them, but the compensation that they received for the home that they had owned was just £10.
I can think of other cases, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind not only compensation to help to bury people, as requested by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but compensation to people who live in houses that were built over where some bodies lie, if the information that we have received is correct. They should receive compensation for the new houses that they will need. We dare not add to the burdens of people who have genuinely sought to make some sort of life through these tragic years.
I feel distaste that the High Court of Parliament has—again—been called on to set aside the normal rules of law and justice to satisfy those who claim that they want justice. That is my difficulty in supporting the Bill. However, because I know that the Whips will see the Bill through, I urge the House to double its efforts to help the victims of atrocities who have continued to grieve for their lost ones. We cannot allow the terrorists and their spokespeople to continue to run rings around us or to play ducks and drakes with us. There will be no understanding and peace if we do not win the battle for the bereaved.

Dr. Godman: I compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill before the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked of the High Court of

Parliament putting aside the rule of law. However, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, our paramount concern is with the families of the victims. The legitimacy of laws passed in this place relies on our having a paramount concern for ordinary individuals over the rules and reservations to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South has referred.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have sincere reservations, but I hope that they do not transform into outright opposition to the Bill's passage.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House throughout the debate and will therefore have heard at least one criticism by a Minister of people who did not vote against the Bill on an earlier occasion. We must be held accountable by the people whom we represent.

Dr. Godman: I know that the hon. Gentleman's reservations are sincere and profound. However, I hope, equally sincerely, that he and his hon. Friends will not vote against the Bill. I understand his reservations, and I have voiced some of my own. I have indeed been in the Chamber for almost every minute of the Bill's proceedings, but, following my meeting with two families in the House, all my reservations and doubts were dispelled by their pleas and their profound need to put to rest their loved ones with a Christian funeral service and burial.
Finding the remains and performing the ritual of burying loved ones will not stop the grieving. Grief continues throughout life, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South and all of us know. However, as I know from the cases of people who have been lost at sea and whose bodies have been recovered months after they were drowned, the return of the loved one's body for Christian burial and internment in sanctified ground brings some peace of mind. The two ladies whom I met made that plea to me and to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who was also at the meeting. In responding positively to that plea, we will bring a touch of comfort and consolation to the families of victims.
I have absolutely no trust in the terrorists or their spokespersons. I have always said that it is obscene that they call themselves freedom fighters. There cannot be freedom fighters in the mature parliamentary democracy in which we have the luck to live. I trust them not one iota, but if only two or three families are given the supreme consolation of being able to have a funeral service or requiem mass for their loved ones, the Bill will have achieved all that the Government set out to achieve.
That is why I stand four-square with the Ministers on the passing of the Bill and am only too pleased to compliment the ministerial team on bringing forward a Bill that the Opposition have described as obnoxious, obscene, distasteful and disgusting. I do not see it in that way. I have reservations, but the object is to bring peace of mind to a small number of ordinary people. We cannot aim any higher than bringing such peace of mind to the people whom I have met.
Again, I hope that the sincerely held reservations of other hon. Members do not transform themselves into opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Öpik: We have had a forensic and legalistic Committee stage debate. Now, as I step back for the Third Reading debate, I can appreciate the human approach that we have taken tonight.
If the House were a person, it is a person whom I would like to meet because we have had the same debate that people have when they have been terribly wronged by someone else and we have decided to take the compassionate route forward. We have heard about bitterness and doubts about whether the other side will respond in kind, just as we feel those things when we argue with another person. However, at the end of the day, we have said that we are going to have faith in seeing the best in people and take a risk. We might get ripped off, but it is worth the risk. The human compassionate benefit of taking it is so great that it is worth being disappointed if we are wrong.
We might be wrong. It may be naive to think that the Bill will work. I feel optimistic. I surprise myself by saying this, but I assume that, if we go this far in extending the gesture of good faith, it may evoke some spark of humanity or decency in people whom we have conventionally written off as barbarians. It is a living experiment. Either they will respond in kind and we will find the remains of the people who were killed and taken from their families—in which case we were right to take the risk—or we will not—in which case we must learn from it and behave differently next time.
I came to the House very much in the spirit that I feel now. We have been human in being willing to do something for relatively few people, but it is a big statement that the House is willing to spend much time to right the grievous wrongs of acts of terrorism. I am proud of our debate and of the fact that we could discuss the matter rationally. Time will tell whether the outcome will justify this as the right thing to do. As a politician who ended up here partly because of what I experienced growing up in Northern Ireland, I am sure that we are right to show that we can make empathic decisions that affect other humans. I hope that people who read this debate, or hear bits on the radio or television, will consider that there may be something in the way in which our democracy operates that gives us some hope in respect of our politicians.

Mr. Thompson: I and my Unionist colleagues will, of course, oppose the Bill. I understand the feelings of those who have lost loved ones and whose relatives were brutally murdered by the IRA and buried in unknown graves. Over the years, there has been pressure on the organisations concerned to say where those people were buried. As a result of that pressure, the IRA claims to have set up an investigation team that has identified the whereabouts of nine bodies. It seems to me that public pressure has forced the IRA to go that far. We must remember that many of the victims belonged to the nationalist community and that the pressure comes from that community. If that pressure continues, the IRA will eventually have to say where the bodies are. This Bill again lets the IRA off the hook.
The IRA will not announce where the bodies are because it wants to be told that, if any evidence is got from the bodies, its members will not be charged or have

that evidence used against them in a court of law. They should not be allowed to get away with that because it is not right in a democratic country to amend the criminal law to let such people off the hook. The IRA has only to issue a statement giving the location of the bodies. The security forces and other authorities could then deal with the situation as they normally would. There is no necessity for a Bill.
The Bill is ill-considered and not fully thought out. The relatives of those who have been murdered will be given less information in the event of the bodies being discovered than they would have got if the normal course of events took place. The Bill is therefore unnecessary.
I also oppose the Bill because it sets up another all-Ireland implementation body. One member of the commission will be appointed by the United Kingdom and the second by the Republic of Ireland. Why is that necessary? It seems that there is a possibility that a body will be found in the Republic of Ireland. There is sufficient law in the Republic of Ireland, and sufficient communication between it and the United Kingdom, adequately to deal with that without setting up another cross-border implementation body.
For those of us who are Unionists, this is another clear example of how the Government are not committed, as they should be, to the Union. In Northern Ireland, we have de facto joint authority. Almost any decision of importance must be agreed by Dublin, which has to have its nose in almost everything in Northern Ireland. For all those reasons, I believe that the Bill should not pass. My party will oppose Third Reading.

Mr. William Ross: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I used clear, sharp language on Monday night when I spoke on this Bill. I have heard nothing from that moment to this to cause me to alter my opinion.
We are told about family grief. We have all had that as a result of deaths, some tragic, some natural. Those of us who represent Northern Ireland—none more than the last speaker, who represents the town of Omagh—have seen the consequences of the butchery of bombs, thugs and murderers at close quarters. I will not rehearse the tragedies that I have attended, but there were many. Many good men, decent women and children were killed, and no one ever brought to book for it. Because of the area in which I live and my close relations with the Roman Catholic community, I well understand the importance that they attach to the last rites and the necessity to bury the deceased in sanctified ground. I am also aware that the Bill is a consequence of a deal done with the IRA, which played on the grief of the victims' families.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said earlier that, when members of the IRA behaved in such and such a way, they had no humanity. People could not get inside their minds. However, the truth is that members of terrorist organisations do not exist in the normal democratic world; they exist in a world and in a mental state that they create and that is a consequence of the actions that they undertake. They believe themselves to be a legitimate army and that they are acting for a righteous cause. They believe that the end justifies the means. They do not adhere to those normal thought processes that most people in this House and in this country would apply to political


situations. As far as members of those organisations are concerned, the majority has no right to be wrong and has no right to disagree with them.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) takes a keen interest in these matters. He knows Northern Ireland well. I point out to him and to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) that the Bill may be built on good intentions, but we know what they say about the road to hell—it is paved with them. The Bill falls firmly and squarely into that category, because the Government have allowed emotion to overrule logic. Hard cases make bad law, and that is so in this case. We are undermining the rule of law. We are giving in to the demands of murderous thugs who have used the common decency of citizens as a weapon, and who have used the normal democratic procedures of this House as a weapon against the House itself.
This type of legislation is abhorrent to me, because we are allowing the IRA to call the tune, so that its members can exact for themselves the maximum benefit from this whole affair. We are allowing the IRA to call the tune with no danger to its members past or present. Avoiding injury or damage to, or capture of, its members is, of course, always the first priority for a terrorist organisation. The measure will also allow members of the IRA to believe that they can use ruthlessness on every occasion to obtain their way.
If the IRA really wanted to tell people where those graves were, all that it need do is to go out at night and put a little stake on the graves, if they are in a field. It knows where the graves are. It would be easy to do that if the bodies were recoverable. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) drew attention to the fact that bodies could be under a house, or in the foundations of a house. How could one recover a body if that were the case? What would happen if the Government knocked the house down and there was no body?
The whole matter is open to endless ramifications and to endless exhibitions of evil. Do not worry—those guys will dream it up and they will use it. If we pass this Bill, we shall do no good to justice. Indeed, we shall do great damage to the whole concept of justice and punishment for evils committed. We shall do no good to the democratic principles that we claim to uphold. Responsibility in this matter rests solely with the terrorist organisations; it rests solely with the IRA—not with us and not with the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, pressure would have worked in this instance.
This case is not the same as the weapons issue. The IRA cannot give up its weapons; it is committed to holding them. Without weapons, the IRA is only another political party. Its members have no desire to be members of only another political party; they see themselves as part of something far greater, something that is beyond the concept of a political party. They see themselves as an army, controlling a political front organisation. They are part of a terrorist organisation controlling what is supposed to be a political organisation, but which is, in practice, only an arm of the terrorism that they have carried out and inflicted on us for three decades.
To apply the thinking about the IRA giving up its weapons and to say that it will do so on exactly the same footing as the bodies is wrong. Its members cannot give

up the weapons because they need them to impose their will; they do not need the bodies. The fact that the bodies are out there and the fact that the IRA is under pressure from its own community is damaging to the IRA. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone lives in an area that is similar to my own in some ways. He is aware that there are many folk around us with that turn of mind. We can speak with greater authority on their thinking processes than most Members of the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, eventually, pressure from their own community, their own relations, church members and their nationalist political establishment will force members of the IRA to reveal, at some time, where the available bodies are buried. We have not put pressure on them; we have let them off the hook and we shall allow them, through the Bill, to claim that they are reacting to public pressure and that they are acting out of the goodness of their heart. However, they will have forced the British to let them off the hook and they will be believed within their own community. It is for that reason, among the other more gut reactions that I articulated during Second Reading, that I must vote against the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 5.

Division No. 172]
[8.26 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies


Allen, Graham
(NE Fife)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cann, Jamie


Ashton, Joe
Caplin, Ivor


Atherton, Ms Candy
Casale, Roger


Atkins, Charlotte
Caton, Martin


Banks, Tony
Cawsey, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barron, Kevin
Chaytor, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda


Begg, Miss Anne
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benton, Joe
Clelland, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Ann


Berry, Roger
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz
Coleman, Iain


Blears, Ms Hazel
Colman, Tony


Blizzard, Bob
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Borrow, David
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cotter, Brian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cousins, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Crausby, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cummings, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Browne, Desmond
(Copeland)


Buck, Ms Karen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burden, Richard
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Burgon, Colin
Darvill, Keith


Burnett, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davidson, Ian


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)






Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ms Jenny


Denham, John
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
 Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Keetch, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Khabra, Piara S
 

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David



Edwards, Huw
Kilfoyle, Peter


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ennis, Jeff

Kirkwood, Archy


Fearn, Ronnie
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Laxton, Bob
 

Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lepper, David


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fyfe, Maria
Linton, Martin


Gapes, Mike
Livingstone, Ken


Gardiner, Barry
Livsey, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lock, David
 

Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Godman. Dr Norman A
(Makerfield)


Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hain, Peter
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice



Hancock, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Harvey, Nick
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hill, Keith
Maxton, John


Hinchliffe, David
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Merron, Gillian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mitchell, Austin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howells, Dr Kim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
 Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Organ, Mrs Diana


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Palmer, Dr Nick





Pearson, Ian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Perham, Ms Linda
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pickthall, Colin
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Stevenson, George


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pond, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pope, Greg
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Stoate, Dr Howard


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Primarolo, Dawn
(Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rapson, Syd
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Todd, Mark


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Touhig, Don


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Trickett, Jon


(Hamilton S)
Truswell, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Webb, Steve


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Sheerrnan, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Woolas, Phil


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
 Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Jane Kennedy and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. David Hanson.




NOES


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Noes:


Maginnis, Ken
>


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. William Thompson and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strangford)
Rev. Martin Smyth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Potato Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Compulsory Land Purchase

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have this debate on compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of land. I am sure that the House recognises the growing demand for reform of our system of compulsory purchase and compensation. It is an extremely complicated area of law and, currently, 42 separate Acts of Parliament apply. The system is complex, slow, expensive and inefficient. It is grossly unfair and heavily biased in favour of national companies, such as the National Grid Company, and other powerful bodies. Might is not always right, so I welcome the Government's fundamental review of laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation, and the interim report.
I should also like to take this opportunity to ask that the Electricity Act 1989 be revised and amended. My particular reason for asking for this debate is the overhead power lines that transmit electricity across the Vale of York and elsewhere in North Yorkshire. A review of both compensation and compulsory purchase and the Electricity Act would help to restore the balance by tilting it more in favour of individual landowners' rights and property interests. It is generally recognised that the Englishman's home is his castle, so how many of us would welcome agents of the National Grid Company entering our property and trampling over our land, often without sufficient warning?
Problems arise at various stages. There will be blight both before the pylon is in place and following construction. There will be a substantial drop in the value of the properties and in the enjoyment of those who live there, as their view will be impaired and there will be pollution from the lines.
The first problem is the serious lack of agreement and the inability of landowners and the National Grid to negotiate about the dent in property values. There is a discrepancy of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That problem must be addressed, procedures must be adopted and compensation levels for pylons must be put on the same basis as for road construction and flood defences.
The second problem is referred to in paragraph 8.5.1 of the interim report commissioned in the Government review. It states:
A major source of grievance among property owners is the right of private companies to use compulsory powers to acquire property, paying a form of statutory compensation which is commonly perceived as benefiting shareholders at the expense of landowners.
Aberdeen university is conducting research into wayleaves. Chapter 9 of the interim report examines the programme of further work, but, surprisingly, does not mention any review of wayleaves once Aberdeen university completes its research. Why not?
The purpose of this debate is to put before the House and the Minister the real concerns that my constituents have expressed about these problems. Tempers are running high in the Vale of York, and there was nearly an assault prior to Christmas last year because of the failure to reach an agreement. Little notice is given and scant regard is shown for property and for landowners'

rights. I shall give some examples of unsympathetic, hostile and offensive behaviour, particularly by the National Grid or its contractors.
Before the wayleave hearings, the National Grid sought to reach agreement with the landowners by offering easements for the overhead line. By offering an easement, as opposed to a wayleave, the National Grid offered a capital payment to reflect the depreciation in the value of the properties, particularly the residential properties, that would be affected by the proximity of the proposed electricity line. Any landowner who did not sign up to the easements before the commencement of the wayleave hearings had the offer withdrawn, with the threat that, once the wayleave hearings were completed and the National Grid had obtained consent for the line, the landowner would receive only an annual wayleave payment that would not reflect the depreciation in capital values suffered. That is a clear abuse of compulsory purchase powers.
I shall refer briefly to correspondence that I have received from my constituents about this matter. One letter referred to a wayleave pre-hearing meeting at Northallerton in December last year. The inspector was asked about the width of the wayleave required over a particular constituent's land. He was unsure of the answer and referred the question to the National Grid. It declined to state the required width of the wayleave to the inspector, so my constituent's question went unanswered. The National Grid then refused to state the width of the wayleave required; that places my constituent in an unacceptable position, as he is uncertain about the amount of land that will be taken out of production. My constituent believes that withholding such information is an infringement of his rights, and I share that view.
Another constituent asked that farmers be given reasonable notice—six months' notice—before the commencement of construction in order to assist them in going about their business. That is a perfectly reasonable request, particularly when such a large project is in hand. I ask the Minister why the rights of farmers are not respected in that regard.
I was struck most by a letter that I received from the Minister for Energy and Industry in February this year, in which he said:
I am unable to intervene as questions of compensation for the presence of an electric line are not the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who has no powers under Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 to prescribe conditions in any wayleaves he may grant. Compensation falls to be settled by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, by the Lands Tribunal at the request of either party.
That is a totally unacceptable response on the part of the Government, and this is an opportunity for the Minister to confirm to the House that the Government will consider that Act and give the Secretary of State the necessary powers.
Another constituent said that the National Grid
have had nine years to plan their proposed development. How do they expect a farmer to adjust his farming activities (cropping and grazing programme) to accommodate a major development with only 28 days' notice?" 
On another occasion, an adviser to that landowner wrote:
I appreciate that the Secretary of State believes he does not have the power under Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 to prescribe financial conditions in any wayleave he may grant.


He continued:
The Minister must look again at the Electricity Act 1989. The National Grid Company must look again at its policy for future electric lines.
I refer in particular to one constituent, Mrs. Hird, who has three young children, whom she has now discovered are on the European at-risk register on possible cancers forming because the children will be brought up under an overhead power line. Because the pylon does not pass across her land, she is not eligible for compensation. She has made a very modest request that the pylon should be moved a further 20 m away from her house. As I speak today, the National Grid has not seen fit to agree to that.
Another problem is that, where overhead lines pass within 150 m of a residential property, the National Grid does not require a wayleave or easement from the individual property owner. A recent complaint is that the National Grid or the contractors have deliberately entered land when the occupier is absent.
There is clearly blight on all those properties because of the associated noise and perceived health risk of a property being close to a high-voltage electricity line. Under a highways scheme, property owners would be eligible for generous compensation, but apparently compensation for such property owners is excluded under the Electricity Act.
Other companies operating in the private sector are known to make more generous payments. For example, payments received as annual rental for mobile phone masts over 15 m high, but substantially lower than the pylons in question, are only a little less than the one-off payment offered by the National Grid in respect of the giant pylons that it seeks to build.
I urge the Minister to go further in the direction that his Government are taking. They commissioned a publication produced by the Property Industry Group, called "Blight, Might and Rights". That group includes the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Agricultural Law Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and many others. It said:
National projects requiring compulsory purchase powers take years to deliver, and leave a trail of disaffected claimants in their wake, and fail to address blight.
It claimed:
Compulsory Purchase Law and procedure should be updated to ensure just and equitable treatment for persons affected, at the same time as ensuring those who need property to modernise and improve the National Infrastructure"— 
such as the grid—
"are able to proceed more quickly than at present."
The group's most alarming conclusion was, perhaps, that privatised utilities
have inherited the power of the State to compel people to part with or grant rights in land and property for their own benefit. There has been no amendment of the legislation to reflect their commercial interest.
This is an opportunity for the Government, as part of their review, to amend and update that legislation. "Blight, Might and Rights" points, in particular, at procedures, costs, the blight that I have mentioned, negotiations and a code of practice.
I turn briefly to flood defences, which raise many concerns and issues similar to those raised by pylons. Coastal property owners and farmers who are faced with

the potential of managed retreat are disappointed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is still unwilling to acknowledge financial loss, even though the Select Committee on Agriculture strongly recommended a compensation mechanism.
The word "compensation" appears not to be accepted by MAFF, whereas the word "benefit" is. That is the benefit to the country as a result of farmers giving up their land for sustainable flood defences. It is only fair that compensation should be paid in such circumstances, as it is for the building of roads, airports and the like. The Government have clearly recognised that there is an acute problem with laws and procedures relating to the compulsory acquisition of land and compensation.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise these concerns on behalf of my constituents. I make a plea to the Minister, the Government and the House to put all forms of compulsory purchase of land on an equal footing, and to make compensation for overhead power lines, flood defences and road construction equally generous and based on the same principles in every case.
I regret that, with regard to overhead line transmissions and the construction of pylons, the National Grid has clearly and often been seen to act in an arrogant, hostile and insensitive manner, at times causing great offence and concern to landowners who live in the Vale of York. Courtesy and advance notice would be appreciated—particularly more than seven days and possibly as much as six months before pylons are constructed. That is not too great a request.
The Minister could make the process more democratic. As I said, it is quite wrong that he is unable to intervene on questions of compensation. Clearly, schedule 4 to the Electricity Act should be amended so that parties do not resort to an expensive land tribunal in the event of disagreement. At what stage is the review, and which specific action and reforms are proposed?
This debate is very timely; it gives the Minister an opportunity to present an update. There is clearly a need for reform, which I think both main parties in the House accept. The Government must proceed and inform the House of such reform. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the reform will be in place before the pylons have been constructed in the Vale of York.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. The House will know that the Government place a high priority on the need to modernise our planning system. As part of that process, we are undertaking a thorough review of compulsory purchase—the most thorough review for a generation—to which the hon. Lady referred.
The hon. Lady made a number of specific points on compulsory purchase orders and wayleaves in her constituency, which I shall address in turn, although I should point out that responsibility for those matters under the Electricity Act 1989 lies, as she knows—we have debated this previously—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, responsibility for coastal protection and flood defences lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The hon. Lady will understand that I


cannot comment on the merits of individual cases, but she and the House may find it helpful if, before I address her specific points, I set out briefly the context in which they should be considered.
It is always agreeable when one secures a consensus. We certainly have a very broad consensus on compulsory purchase and compensation laws: everyone, it seems, is critical of them. The trouble is that the consensus does not extend to agreeing what precisely we should do to make such laws better. Indeed, opinions on the matter are extremely polarised. There are those who maintain that the expropriation of land is draconian; that too many bodies have compulsory purchase powers; that compensation is inadequate; and that acquiring authorities can be heavy handed and inconsiderate in their deployment of such powers. I have some sympathy with those people.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that part of the problem, as he has explained, is that three different Ministries are involved and that there is no co-ordination between them? A landowner in my constituency is attempting to negotiate with the National Grid Company, but he is faced not just with the might of a large company, but with three Departments which each pass responsibility to another.

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall highlight specifically the issues that are relevant, especially to electricity pylons and cables, which are often very different from those that apply to compulsory purchase in an urban context. She will equally appreciate that Departments that have a particular interest in a subject—for example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a particular interest in coastal and flood defences—should be involved. However, I shall return to those points.
I was explaining that some people regard the whole compulsory purchase procedure as draconian. Others view compulsory purchase as an essential tool for the achievement of publicly beneficial work, such as the regeneration of run-down urban areas. They argue that compensation often rewards land or property owners whose neglect has contributed to the very dereliction that the regeneration seeks to reverse, and that the achievement of our target of 60 per cent. of new homes to be built on recycled land can be achieved only if there is wider use of compulsory purchase order-backed land assembly in appropriate development sites in cities. I have some sympathy with those views, too.
Having set out those two viewpoints, I should say that there is a third viewpoint—that of those who, putting to one side the questions of the adequacy of the powers or the quantum of compensation, point to the mind-boggling complexity of the law. There are hundreds—probably thousands—tutory references to compulsory purchase and compensation, spread through dozens of statutes going back as far as 1845. Add to that the accretion of 150 years of case law, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you have a behemoth of a system.
The House will readily appreciate that when the lawyers complain that the law is too complex, it is almost certainly too complex, and it is time for action to be taken

to tackle that. That is what we are seeking to do. The Government are aware of the problems, and our overriding objective is to create a simplified, consolidated and codified law, which is efficient, effective and fairer all round. That is what we are trying to achieve.
In June 1998, we established a fundamental review of the laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation. Because the system is so convoluted and the opinions of the protagonists are so divided, we constituted an advisory group to help us undertake that task. I place on the record my gratitude for the work that that distinguished group of lawyers, academics, planners, surveyors, landowners, local authority officers and representatives of the major developers has undertaken so far.
The interim report, presented by that group in December, has been widely welcomed and praised for the thoroughness with which it has approached the issues and for the balance of its conclusions. I am confident that the group's continuing work will deliver the results that we wish.
My confidence that the review is proceeding along the right track was boosted following the first ever national symposium on compulsory purchase and compensation, which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in partnership with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute, sponsored in February 1999. Discussion at the symposium—was privileged to have the opportunity of attending and speaking at—spondence since then confirms that we are addressing the key issues, and that we are doing so pragmatically.
Now is not the time for a detailed critique of the group's report nor of its work programme for the months to come, but two linked findings are of particular importance. The first is that, allowing for some exceptions in the detail, the current compulsory purchase order framework is essentially sound and does not need reinventing in its entirety. The second is that the system is not always operated "efficiently, effectively or fairly"—uence, the group believes, of the infrequency with which the powers have been used in recent years. To put matters right, the group recommended—been quick to act on that recommendation—mpulsory purchase guidance and best practice manual be devised, guiding acquiring authorities through all the twists and turns of the process. I might add that this apparently modest initiative has been widely welcomed, even by some authorities that view themselves as highly competent in that area.
I have given the House a brief overview to demonstrate that we recognise that the current system of compulsory purchase and compensation is widely perceived to be deficient, and that we are actually doing something about it. I have also sought to show that there are no simple solutions to any of the problems—east, that what are sometimes presented as simple solutions are, as often as not, fiercely resisted by those whose perspectives differ.
The hon. Lady she spoke at length about the electricity pylons in the Vale of York. She will doubtless appreciate that had that featured in the title of the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry would probably have responded, as he is in a far better


position than I am to give a detailed answer on matters relating to wayleaves and electricity. I shall try to give as helpful a response as I can, albeit from a less authoritative position than my hon. Friend.

Miss McIntosh: May I put on record the fact that I had a detailed conversation with the Minister's office about the nature of the debate this evening, so I am slightly stunned by that remark?

Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Lady will recognise, the choice of Minister to respond to the debate had already been made by that time, because the title of the debate related to compulsory purchase and compensation, without reference to electricity. As we established in a previous debate, responsibility under the Electricity Act 1989 lies with the Department of Trade and Industry.
The hon. Lady spoke about the National Grid Company's proposed electric line from Lackenby, in Cleveland, via Picton to Shipton in North Yorkshire—the North Yorkshire line An electricity Company usually obtains access rights to install a line over or under a particular piece of land by obtaining either a wayleave or a permanent easement from the landowner. If the company is unable to obtain such agreements voluntarily, it may apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the grant of a compulsory wayleave, or to confirm a compulsory purchase order in respect of the required access rights.
In 1994 and 1995, the National Grid applied to the Secretary of State for the grant of a number of compulsory wayleaves to authorise it to install its proposed North Yorkshire overhead line. Following hearings into the applications, most of the wayleaves applied for were granted in March 1998. Since the Secretary of State's decisions on these matters, further wayleave applications have been confirmed relating to various sites along the route of the power line.
I know that the hon. Lady has written to DTI Ministers on several occasions on the subject of compensation and access rights granted under a compulsory wayleave. As she will now know, the Secretary of State has no powers to prescribe any financial conditions in any wayleaves that he grants.
Compensation falls to be settled by agreement between the landowner and the company or, failing agreement, by the Lands Tribunal. However, the industry has agreed with the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union in Wales a scale of compensation for poles, pylons and wires, and I understand that those are accepted in the overwhelming majority of cases.
The hon. Lady asked why the interests of farmers are not better protected. Clearly, that is a matter that she should take up with the NFU and the CLA, which agreed the scale of compensation for such arrangements.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's generosity in giving way. There has been a clear abuse of compulsory powers. Initially, by offering an easement as opposed to a wayleave, the National Grid was offering a capital payment to reflect the depreciation in the value of the property. To those who did not take up the offer at the time, the National Grid has behaved shoddily. I hoped that the Minister would address the issue this evening.

Mr. Raynsford: As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, that is specifically a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry. As it is not my responsibility, I am not in a position to respond on the actions of the National Grid in relation to an electricity wayleave.
I know that a number of landowners who are the subject of compulsory wayleaves have argued that the wayleave grants the company only very limited access to their land, more or less along the route of the proposed line. That is a clear difference from compulsory purchase of a property for development, where the property is acquired to be disposed of. The arrangement necessitates a different regime from that which would apply in the case of compulsory acquisition.
A wayleave granted by the Secretary of State gives access rights for the purpose of installing and keeping installed the line, and for purposes relating to its maintenance. The access rights do not define particular parts of a plot of land to which access is granted. The wayleave identifies only the land at issue.
It is therefore necessary to look at the purpose of the wayleave so that access to sufficient land is allowed for installation and maintenance purposes. Obviously, that will involve a particular strip underneath the line, but it will also involve access to other parts of the land—for example, access from an entrance to the land to the strip underneath the line.
Although the wayleave identifies the line and the land in question, the detailed implementation of these rights—for example, agreeing working areas and access routes— is a matter for discussion and agreement between the landowner and the company. Obviously, given the different circumstances in different areas, there have to be agreements between the parties to ensure the minimum disruption and the most satisfactory arrangement to avoid causing inconvenience to the landowner.

Miss McIntosh: I think that the Minister, so far as he has responsibility, will accept that this is the crux of the debate. First, there has been an announcement—by either North Yorkshire county council or Hambleton district council—that the Queen's highways may not be used to access the land. The farmers' land will be used in the construction stage in a way that had never been imagined possible before. That has caused difficulties for the parties concerned reaching an agreement.
Secondly, family businesses are involved. The farmers are concerned that National Grid is unable to say exactly when it is coming in and exactly to what amount of land it wants access. Farmers in North Yorkshire, particularly cereal growers and beef producers, have gone through a record crisis and they need a degree of certainty in planning.

Mr. Raynsford: My understanding is that the company is currently attempting to negotiate on access routes and lines with the landowners. Clearly, if there are problems arising from those negotiations and the hon. Lady believes that this matter is being handled unsatisfactorily by the statutory undertaker, she should certainly take that up with my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I am told that consent was refused for two short stretches of line—at Nunthorpe and near Newby— and so it fell to the company to consider placing those two


stretches underground. I gather that it is the company's intention to route underground not only those two stretches, but the stretch of line between them.
The Secretary of State's powers to grant consent for electricity lines do not cover underground cables; accordingly, the company does not need to obtain consent. However, it must ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for access to allow construction and maintenance of the cable. I understand that the company is currently trying to negotiate voluntary agreements with the affected landowners. However, if voluntary agreements cannot be reached, the company may either apply for compulsory wayleaves or for the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders in respect of the access requirements.
According to the information available to me, the DTI has not received any applications for the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders. However, if any are received, the statutory procedures allow interested parties to make their case to a person appointed by the Secretary of State. Only after receiving the report of the appointed person will the Secretary of State express any view on any such applications.
I am conscious that I have not answered every last point relating to consents under the 1989 Act, but I have no doubt that my colleagues at the DTI would be happy to advise the hon. Lady further, should she wish to contact them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Nine o'clock.